South Coast Air Quality Management District
South Coast Air Quality Management DistrictSUMMARY MINUTES OF THE
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2001
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 9:45 a.m.)
County of Los AngelesCouncilmember Hal Bernson
Cities of Los Angeles County - Western RegionMs. Jane W. Carney
Senate Rules Committee AppointeeCouncilmember Beatrice J. S. LaPisto-Kirtley
Cities of Los Angeles County - Eastern RegionMayor Ronald O. Loveridge
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 James W. Silva
County of OrangeSupervisor S. Roy Wilson, Ed.D.
County of Riverside
Chairman Burke called the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m.
Chairman Burke. Congratulated students of Wilson Middle School in Pasadena for their entries in the January 27, 2001 National Engineer Week Future Cities Competition. AQMD staff participated as judges in the competition and chose the entries by Wilson Middle School as having the best air quality considerations.
Chairman Burke administered the oath of office to Supervisor James W. Silva. Mr. Silva was appointed by the Orange County Board of Supervisors to fill the unexpired term vacated by Supervisor Cynthia Coad, as Orange County’s representative on the Board, for a term ending January 15, 2002.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MS. GLOVER MOVED APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM NO. 1. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY DR. WILSON, AND PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Bernson, Burke, Carney, Glover, LaPisto-Kirtley, Loveridge, Mikels, Paulitz, Verdugo-Peralta, and Wilson.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: Silva.
ABSENT: Antonovich.
Agenda Items Nos. 2, 3, 9, 10, 12, and 13 were held for discussion.
ON MOTION OF MS. GLOVER, SECONDED BY MR. BERNSON, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Antonovich), THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEMS NOS. 4 THROUGH 8, 11, AND 14 THROUGH 27, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
3. Approve Expenditure Plan for One-Time Revenue
Ms. Carney commented that her understanding with respect to the settlements with AES and LADWP was that in exchange for longer operating hours and increased emissions, the funds that were received would be used to mitigate NOx emissions elsewhere; however, she did not see an analysis indicating that is what would occur.
Dr. Wallerstein responded that in the settlement with AES, the facility was required to install controls on an expedited schedule to help mitigate emissions in the future. Secondly, staff, pursuant to RECLAIM rules, subtracted any excess emissions that the company had from this year’s allocation to make the environment whole. The third component was that the Board has full discretion on how funds from the AES agreement will be utilized. The LADWP settlement also requires the future year’s subtraction and expedited implementation of controls, and then prescribes that LADWP would work with AQMD to derive a set of projects for expenditure of the funds.
Commenting that since the additional emissions are coming from stationary sources,
MS. CARNEY MOVED TO REFER AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 TO THE BOARD’S STATIONARY SOURCE COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. MIKELS.
Mr. Mikels expressed concern that this item amounts to approximately one-third of the AQMD’s budget, yet there was no indication of the amount of emission reductions to be obtained from the expenditures on the AES portion of the proposal by staff. He believed the item needed further review by the Board before making a determination, and he suggested that staff provide alternatives for expenditure of the revenue from the AES settlement, an estimate of emission reductions, and information regarding the cost efficiency of any emission reductions to be obtained from the expenditures. He indicated that he was not opposed to the expenditures proposed for the $14 million settlement with LADWP since that proposal had been negotiated and stipulated to by the AQMD and LADWP.
MS. CARNEY AMENDED THE MAIN MOTION TO APPROVE THE EXPENDITURE PLAN, WITH RESPECT TO THE $14 MILLION SETTLEMENT WITH LADWP, AND REFER THE PORTION REGARDING THE $17 MILLION SETTLEMENT WITH AES TO THE STATIONARY SOURCE COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW.
Ms. Verdugo-Peralta suggested that, if feasible, the natural gas fueling station infrastructure be made hydrogen-compatible for the future infrastructure for fuel cells. Dr. Chung Liu, DEO of Science & Technology Advancement, responded that the infrastructure for natural gas could be converted to hydrogen infrastructure in the future.
The consensus of the Board being that the full Board, rather than one or two Board committees, should review the expenditure plan for the AES settlement funds,
MS. CARNEY AMENDED THE MOTION TO REFER THE PORTION OF THE EXPENDITURE PLAN REGARDING THE $17 MILLION SETTLEMENT WITH AES TO A BOARD WORKSHOP.
(Mr. Antonovich arrived at 9:45 a.m.)
In response to Chairman Burke’s inquiry as to whether there were any items on the proposed list of expenditures for the AES settlement revenue that the AQMD had committed to and the Board should consider at this time, Dr. Wallerstein indicated that the proposed $6 million for natural gas fueling infrastructure is critical to the support of AQMD’s 1190 series of fleet rules.
Ms. Verdugo-Peralta commented that the proposal for expenditure of the $17 million should include energy conservation and other programs that would reduce the load that the power companies have to maintain.
Mr. Paulitz commented that he believed the proposed Inland Empire Initiatives Reserve of $0.5 million is insufficient. He indicated that staff should seek input from each Board member as to the type of projects that should be funded with this unanticipated one-time revenue. Further, he expressed his belief that it would be more appropriate for certain items, such as the loan of an AQIP, to be funded from the AQMD’s budget reserves.
Emphasizing the importance of infrastructure in support of AQMD’s fleet rules, Ms. Glover requested that the Board consider approving the $6 million from the AES settlement for the natural gas fueling station infrastructure with public access.
MS. CARNEY AMENDED THE MAIN MOTION TO APPROVE THE EXPENDITURE OF $6 MILLION FROM THE $17 MILLION SETTLEMENT WITH AES FOR NATURAL GAS FUELING STATION INFRASTRUCTURE WITH PUBLIC ACCESS ONLY, AND REFER THE REMAINING RECOMMENDED EXPENDITURES FOR THE SETTLEMENT WITH AES TO A BOARD WORKSHOP.
Expressing his belief that the process for dividing and allocating the $6 million among the four counties in the South Coast basin would take time, and he would prefer keeping the $17 million intact and reviewing the entire proposal after obtaining more information from staff,
MR. MIKELS WITHDREW HIS SECOND TO THE MAIN MOTION BY MS. CARNEY, AND DR. WILSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Loveridge indicated that he would like more information as to how the $6 million was arrived at on the AES portion, and he believed the Board should review the proposal regarding the AES settlement in its entirety. Chairman Burke suggested bifurcating the item, and
MS. CARNEY MOVED APPROVAL OF THE EXPENDITURE PLAN, WITH RESPECT TO THE $14 MILLION SETTLEMENT WITH LADWP ONLY. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY DR. WILSON, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MS. CARNEY MOVED TO REFER THE PORTION OF THE EXPENDITURE PLAN REGARDING THE $17 MILLION SETTLEMENT WITH AES TO A BOARD WORKSHOP, TO BE HELD ON OR BEFORE APRIL 20, 2001. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. MIKELS.
DR. WILSON MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO APPROVE THE EXPENDITURE OF $6 MILLION FROM THE $17 MILLION SETTLEMENT WITH AES FOR NATURAL GAS FUELING STATION INFRASTRUCTURE WITH PUBLIC ACCESS. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY, AND PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Antonovich, Bernson, Burke, Glover, LaPisto-Kirtley, Paulitz, Silva, Verdugo-Peralta, and Wilson.
NOES: Carney, Loveridge, and Mikels.
A MOTION WAS DULY MADE AND SECONDED TO REFER THE REMAINING $11 MILLION SETTLEMENT WITH AES TO A BOARD WORKSHOP, TO BE HELD ON OR BEFORE APRIL 20, 2001. THE MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Antonovich, Bernson, Burke, Carney, Glover,
LaPisto-Kirtley, Loveridge, Paulitz, Silva, Verdugo-Peralta, and Wilson.NOES: Mikels.
2(C). Set Public Hearing March 16, 2001 to Adopt Proposed Rule 1195 – Clean
On-Road School BusesMs. LaPisto-Kirtley recommended that the public hearing be held in 60 days instead of 30 days to allow staff additional time to work on resolving outstanding issues relating to the requirement for alternative-fueled school buses.
MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY MOVED TO SET THE PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED RULE 1195 FOR THE APRIL 20, 2001 BOARD MEETING. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. BERNSON, AND PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Antonovich, Bernson, Burke, Carney, Glover,
LaPisto-Kirtley, Loveridge, Paulitz, Silva, Verdugo-Peralta, and Wilson.NOES: Mikels.
Ms. Verdugo-Peralta requested that staff examine potential environmental justice issues associated with the proposed lottery method for dissemination of funds for rule-compliant buses, and she suggested that ranking recipients by highest level of noncontainment be considered. Ms. LaPisto-Kirtley suggested that the impacts at the schools also be taken into consideration.
ON MOTION OF MR. BERNSON, SECONDED BY MR. PAULITZ, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Mikels), THE BOARD LIMITED COMMENT BY THE PUBLIC ON THIS ITEM TO THE SETTING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE ONLY.
The following individuals addressed the Board to comment on this item:
BILL McKINNEY, Temecula Valley Unified School District
BOB WIGGINTON, Rowland Unified School District
BOB HATTOY, concerned citizen
*ROBERT SULNICK, South Coast Clean Air Partnership
TODD CAMPBELL, Coalition for Clean Air
LEE WALLACE, Sempra Energy/Southern California Gas Company
JULIE MASTERS, Natural Resources Defense Council
THOMAS TRAN, American Lung Association of Los Angeles County
ANITA MANGELS, South Coast Clean Air Partnership
*Submitted Written CommentsRepresentatives of the school districts and industry supported the Board’s action to delay the public hearing date for PR 1195, and there were requests from Mr. McKinney and Mr. Sulnick for the Board to consider delaying the hearing until the May 11, 2001 Board meeting. Mr. Hattoy suggested that the Board delay the hearing date until all the facts are in from the various studies in progress relating to the toxicity of school bus emissions.
Environmental community representatives urged the Board not to delay the public hearing date beyond the March 16, 2001 Board meeting because of their concern that the school districts will not apply by the April 3, 2001 deadline for funding under CARB’s Lower-Emission School Bus Program; and, pursuant to PR 1195, the schools will not have to purchase alternative-fueled buses if they do not have the funding.
Written Comments Submitted by:
Michael H. Fine, Newport-Mesa Unified School DistrictDr. Wallerstein responded that staff will work with the school districts and encourage them to apply for the alternative-fueled school bus funding. He stated that staff believes the 60-day period will be sufficient time for staff to address the unresolved issues, and he recommended that the Board not delay the hearing until the May 11 Board meeting.
Ms. LaPisto-Kirtley commented that she believes the state funding will be oversubscribed, both in the diesel and alternative fuel areas. She noted that the MSRC has funds that have been set aside for alternative-fueled school buses, and the MSRC will conduct outreach to ensure that the school districts apply for those funds.
In response to a question by Chairman Burke concerning the uncertainty, with the present statewide energy crisis, as to the availability of state funding for lower-emission school buses, Dr. Wallerstein indicated that staff has not received official notification that the funds are not available. He emphasized that PR 1195 would require purchase of alternative-fueled buses only if the funding is available.
Ms. Verdugo-Peralta asked that staff look into partnerships that the AQMD needs to create with the community colleges, specifically the College of the Desert and Cypress College Fuel Technologies, to ensure that there is a workforce in place to maintain the alternative-fueled school buses required by the proposed rule.
Ms. LaPisto-Kirtley expressed her concurrence, but only if the partnerships are already in existence. She indicated that she would not agree to using any funding for alternative-fueled or clean diesel school buses for such partnerships. With a reminder to the school districts to apply for the state funds by the April 3, 2001 deadline,
MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY MOVED APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 AS RECOMMENDED, WITH THE AMENDMENT TO
ITEM 2(C) TO SET THE PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED
RULE 1195 FOR APRIL 20, 2001. THE MOTION WAS DULY SECONDED, AND PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:AYES: Antonovich, Bernson, Burke, Carney, Glover,
LaPisto-Kirtley, Loveridge, Paulitz, Silva, Verdugo-Peralta, and Wilson.NOES: Mikels.
9. Execute Contract for Media Relations/Public Relations Services
John Billheimer, of Environmental Reality, addressed the Board with regard to the media consultant proposal. He expressed his belief that AQMD’s Newsclips contain too many topics for an efficient retrieval system, and suggested that the topics be consolidated in order for the Newsclips to be an effective tool for the consultants to increase their familiarity with the AQMD. (Submitted Written Comments.)
12. Issue Program Announcement and Application for FY 2000-01 Lower-Emission
School Bus Replacement and Retrofit Program FundingDave Smith of BP/Arco addressed the Board to express their objection to the possibility of the AQMD trading its green diesel funds for CNG funds from other air districts that are implementing the Lower-Emission School Bus Program.
13. Execute Contracts for Retrofit of CNG Transit Bus with Particulate Trap, and
Analyses of Exhaust form Retrofitted BusTodd Campbell of Coalition for Clean Air and Julie Masters of Natural Resources Defense Council waived comment on the item.
10. Execute Contract to Co-sponsor Development of Dual Inductive/Conductive
Charger Bracket to Allow Reduction of EV Charging Infrastructure CostsMs. LaPisto-Kirtley commented that the proposed chargers should be installed at 10 new charging stations, not replacing chargers at 10 existing stations, so that there would then be 20 charging stations.
ON MOTION OF DR. WILSON, SECONDED BY MS. GLOVER, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Loveridge), THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEMS 9, 10, 12 AND 13, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
BOARD CALENDAR
Mr. Paulitz commented that the Administrative Committee report only related to the Committee’s January 12, 2001 meeting; however, Agenda Item No. 3 on today’s agenda had been reviewed by the Administrative Committee at its February 9, 2001 meeting (the February 9 meeting would normally be reported at the March 16 Board meeting). He asked staff if it was possible to have the Committee report on all of its activities prior to the Board meeting at which it is reported. Dr. Wallerstein indicated that staff would reformat the Committee report as requested, effective with the March 16, 2001 Board agenda package.
ON A MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, THE BOARD RECEIVED AND FILED AGENDA ITEMS 29 THROUGH 36 AND ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING POSITIONS ON LEGISLATION, AS RECOMMENDED:
ABXI XX (Frommer) – Emission Offset Fees SUPPORT
SBXI 28 (Sher) – Powerplant Siting SUPPORT
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Dr. Wallerstein noted that, as requested by the Administrative Committee, staff reformatted the Program Goals/Objectives document and included a set of accomplishments for the last calendar year.
The public hearing was opened. There being no requests from the public to comment on this item, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Antonovich requested that staff provide to the Board a report specifying which AQMD regulations are more stringent than other air quality districts’ regulations and which AQMD regulations are more stringent than state regulations.
Several Board members had questions regarding the permit backlog and continued implementation of the Permit Streamlining Task Force recommendations. Dr. Wallerstein noted that one of the proposals included in the proposed expenditure plan for the funds from the AES settlement (Agenda Item No. 3), which the Board had decided to consider in a special meeting, was to eliminate the permit backlog through hiring temporary employees. In addition, Agenda Item No. 16 (Recognize and Appropriate Additional Subvention Funds from CARB for Enforcement and Compliance Projects and Add Positions), which was approved by the Board, includes 12 additional permit processing engineers to keep the permit processing workload current on a day-to-day basis once the backlog has been eliminated.
Mr. Paulitz suggested that the Board should have a midyear budget review to determine the status of AQMD’s revenue stream and expenditures, and make budget adjustments to address such items as hiring temporary staff to eliminate the permit backlog. He also commented that there was a fee study conducted approximately two years ago which showed that the permit fees were not covering AQMD’s costs of operation.
Rick Pearce, Chief Financial Officer, responded that staff organized a Revenue Committee which held several meetings this fiscal year and is preparing the staff’s proposal on adjustments to the fees which would incorporate many of the recommendations from the fee study. In addition, at the Board’s FY 2001-02 AQMD Budget and Fees Workshop in May, staff plans to discuss with the Board staff’s proposals for changes to the fee structure to recover a greater amount of the AQMD’s costs.
MS. CARNEY MOVED TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING MAY 11, 2001 TO ADOPT THE FY 2001-02 AQMD BUDGET, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION WAS DULY SECONDED, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Verdugo-Peralta).
Laki Tisopulos, Planning & Rules Manager, gave the staff report. Staff presented two alternatives for the Board’s consideration: Alternative A, which was originally brought to the Board at its October 2000 meeting; and Alternative B, which was developed subsequent to the October 2000 meeting based on input from the regulated public, ARB and U.S. EPA. In addition, an addendum by staff, Revised Alternative B, was distributed to Board members and copies made available to the public. The changes in the addendum were accommodations staff made in response to requests from recent comments from the business community, and staff recommended that the Board amend Rule 1303(b)(2) as set forth in Revised Alternative B.
The addendum contained the following revisions to subparagraphs (b)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(B) of PAR 1303:
- "…… ERCD = Total remaining delisted compound ERCs excluding those that resulted from equipment shutdowns and held by their original holders, as of 90 days after (date of adoption)."
- "Reissue the difference between old and new certificate values as delisted VOC reduction certificates. Reissue the certificates for ERCs for perchloroethylene, acetone, and 1,1,1 TCA that resulted from equipment shutdowns and held by their original owners as of 90 days from (date of adoption) as delisted VOC reduction certificates. Such certificates…."
The addendum also contained the following Board Resolution language:
"WHEREAS, the Governing Board finds and determines, taking into consideration the factors in Section (d)(4)(D) of the Governing Board Procedures, that the modification adopted which have been made to Proposed Amended Rule 1303(b)(2) since notice of public hearing was published do not significantly change the meaning of the proposed amended rule within the meaning of Health and Safety Code Section 40726 and would not constitute significant new information pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5;"
The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:
MILLIE YAMADA, Northrop Grumman
Commented that Northrop Grumman currently has 129 pounds of VOCs which could be discounted under Alternative B, and urged the Board to approve Alternative A.
Dr. Wallerstein responded that under Alternative A, only those companies with ERCs for delisted compounds would be discounted; whereas, Alternative B would discount all VOC ERCs across the board, and that way, the entire market is protected.
JOAN HEREDIA, NRG/Dynegy
Requested, and received from staff, clarification that for those applications which have already been deemed complete, their credits would be considered "in use" and would not be subject to the additional devaluation.
In response to a question by Mr. Antonovich, Elaine Chang, DEO/Planning, Rule Development, & Area Sources, commented that the pool of orphan shutdown credits which the AQMD holds is available, if the Board wants to include the orphan credits as a means of lessening the impact on all of the companies. However, staff did not recommend using the orphan credits at this time because: (i) the account was set aside to facilitate economic growth for small businesses with less than 4 tons/year of emissions; and (ii) there will be very significant air quality impacts because of the current energy crisis, and allowing use of the orphan credits would result in emissions which would otherwise not be introduced into the air.
BILL QUINN, California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance
DAVID FARABEE, Attorney on behalf of Pektank CorporationUrged the Board to approve Revised Alternative B, as recommended by staff, with an amendment, however, that would require the AQMD to absorb a portion of the shortfall in VOC ERCs.
JOHN BILLHEIMER, Small Business Coalition
Commented that use of the orphan credits was not publicly noticed for this item, and therefore should not be a consideration. He expressed his belief that there would have been significant protest from small businesses if the notice had included consideration of using the orphan credits.
In response to concern expressed by Mr. Mikels regarding reissuing the delisted credits in an equitable manner, staff recommended that Subparagraph (b)(2)(B) be modified as follows:
"B. Reissue the difference between old and new certificate values as delisted VOC reduction certificates. Such credits shall be issued in the same proportion as the old certificate holders were devalued. Reissue the certificates for….."
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
ON MOTION OF DR. WILSON, SECONDED BY MS. CARNEY, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, THE BOARD ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 01-3, AMENDING RULE 1303 AND CERTIFYING THE NOTICE OF EXEMPTION, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:
Subparagraphs (b)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(B) of Rule 1303 were amended as follows:
A. "…… ERCD = Total remaining delisted compound ERCs excluding those that resulted from equipment shutdowns and held by their original holders, as of 90 days after (date of adoption)."
B. "Reissue the difference between old and new certificate values as delisted VOC reduction certificates. Such credits shall be issued in the same proportion as the old certificate holders were devalued. Reissue the certificates for ERCs for perchloroethylene, acetone, and 1,1,1 TCA that resulted from equipment shutdowns and held by their original owners as of 90 days from (date of adoption) as delisted VOC reduction certificates. Such certificates…."
The following language was added to the Board Resolution for PAR 1303:
"WHEREAS, the Governing Board finds and determines, taking into consideration the factors in Section (d)(4)(D) of the Governing Board Procedures, that the modification adopted which have been made to Proposed Amended Rule 1303(b)(2) since notice of public hearing was published do not significantly change the meaning of the proposed amended rule within the meaning of Health and Safety Code Section 40726 and would not constitute significant new information pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5;"
OTHER BUSINESS
Dr. Wallerstein commented that there was a suggestion made at the February 9, 2001 Legislative Committee that the Board adopt a resolution stating general policies on several points related to the energy crisis, because there will likely be legislation approved in the extraordinary session of the California Legislature prior to the next Legislative Committee meeting or the next Board meeting. He summarized the policies in the proposed Resolution, which would provide staff with general guidance which it could utilize in providing input on any bills that are brought forth.
ON MOTION OF MR. SILVA, SECONDED BY MS. CARNEY, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, THE BOARD ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 01-4, APPROVING THE GENERAL POLICIES WHEN CONSIDERING LEGISLATIVE ISSUES RELATIVE TO ENERGY ISSUES AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO TAKE POSITIONS ON LEGISLATION CONSISTENT WITH THE RESOLUTION, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - (Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items, Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.3)
Todd Campbell, Coalition for Clean Air, introduced to the Board Ms. Lori Shimonishi, the new education outreach coordinator for the Coalition.
CLOSED SESSION
The Board recessed to closed session at 11:38 a.m., pursuant to Government Code sections:
- 54956.9(a), to confer with its 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 AHM (AIJx); 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
- 54956.9(c), to confer with its counsel to decide, based on existing facts and circumstances, whether to initiate litigation (two cases).
ADJOURNMENT
Following closed session, District Counsel Barbara Baird stated that the Board had taken action in closed session to: (i) authorize the AQMD to file an amicus brief in the litigation challenging the EPA low-sulfur diesel rule; and (ii) pursuant to USA v. EPA, extend the time for EPA to act on Rule 518.2. The meeting was adjourned.
The foregoing is a true statement of the proceedings held by the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board on February 16, 2001.
Respectfully Submitted,
SAUNDRA McDANIEL
Senior Deputy Clerk
Date Minutes Approved: ________________________
____________________________________________
William A. Burke, Ed.D., Chairman
ACRONYMS
AES = AES Alamitos, LLC
AQIP = Air Quality Investment Program
ARB = Air Resources Board
CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act
CNG = Compressed Natural Gas
DEO = Deputy Executive Officer
EPA = Environmental Protection Agency
ERC = Emission Reduction Credit
EV = Electric Vehicle
FY = Fiscal Year
LADWP = Los Angeles Department of Water & Power
MSRC = Mobile Source (Air Pollution Reduction) Review Committee
NOx = Oxides of Nitrogen
PAR = Proposed Amended Rule
PR = Proposed Rule
RFP = Request for Proposals
RFQ = Request for Quotations
VOC = Volatile Organic Compound