BOARD MEETING

DATE: January 12, 1996

AGENDA NO. 18

REPORT: Mobile Source Committee

SYNOPSIS: The Mobile Source Committee met on Friday, December 15.
Major items discussed included: Update on Rule 2202 - On Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options, Status Report on REACH Task Force, and an Update on Intercredit Trading Study. An attendance roster is provided in Attachment I. The next meeting will be held on Friday, January 26, 1995, in Conference Room CC-8 at 9 a.m.

RECOMMENDED ACTION

1. Approve the attached report.

Candace Haggard, Chairperson

Mobile Source Committee

BRW:CLW:GQT

TOPICS

.

1. Rule 2202 - On Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation

Staff gave a presentation on Rule 2202 of actions taken by the Governing Board at its December 8th meeting. Staff highlighted (Attachment II) the proposed implementation plan, remaining issues to resolve, and the Air Quality Investment Plan (AQIP). As part of the implementation plan, staff will be sending a special edition of the AQMD "Advisor" newsletter and a letter to Chief Executive Officers and Employee Transportation Coordinators (ETCs), highlighting the various options under the Board approved Rule 2202. Staff will be holding informational workshops (Attachment III) at the District and throughout the Basin to brief individuals and respond to specific questions and company situations. Boardmember Soto stated that local governments may have different needs and staff may need to tailor letters to accommodate specific audiences. Staff will fax draft letters to the Mobile Source Committee boardmembers for review and comments.

Boardmember Loveridge asked staff what kind of questions they are receiving from incoming callers. Staff responded by stating that most of the inquiries were site specific and related to implementation.

At the direction of the Board, staff was asked to perform an analysis to determine what the implications would be on air quality if primary and secondary schools were exempt from Rule 2202. Staff is examining the effects by county, employee and student population, Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) status and emissions reductions achieved thus far. Staff is estimating a potential revenue loss of approximately $100,000. Committee Chair Haggard asked staff if AB2766 funds offset the fees presently not paid by school districts. District staff responded affirmatively.

Boardmember Lee asked staff if trips completed by parents were being considered. Staff stated that parent trips were being considered to determine if credit could be given for those students who were using public transportation, thereby reducing the number of trips a parent might take. Boardchairman Mikels stated that approximately 27% of the students are participating in public transportation. Primary and secondary schools might consider replacing existing buses with alternative fuels buses as a way to obtain emissions credit inexpensively. Boardchairman Mikels asked staff if AQIP funds could be used to fund this type of project. Staff responded affirmatively.

Boardmember Loveridge stated that there is no reason to exempt schools from Rule 2202. Boardchairman Mikels stated that if student trips are included as part of the calculation to meet the AVR targets, schools may already be in compliance. Boardmember Lee stated that there are a substantial number of schools that are part of the baseline. Boardmember Lee stated that she is reluctant to exempt schools from Rule 2202. Committee Chair Haggard stated that if the AQMD is going to regulate any source for Rule 2202, it should be schools because of the example given to students. Boardmember Lee stated that the Burbank Unified School District has already begun to educate students about vehicle mitigation options before they begin to drive. A motion was made by Boardmember Loveridge that the committee not exempt schools from Rule 2202. Committee Chair Haggard seconded the motion and the committee unanimously approved the motion.

Staff distributed (Attachment IV) an update on the AQIP fee levels. Staff indicated that the annual and triennial AQIP fee levels in Rule 2202 have been lowered by 45 and 62 percent, respectively, compared to the AQIP fee level in Rule 1501.1; those reductions were established based on the compliance cost of implementing car scrapping. Staff also presented the results for the analysis conducted to determine the appropriateness of the AQIP fee level for Rule 2202. The analysis was based on hypothetical cost scenarios, as well as on actual cost information obtained by surveying companies currently offering car scrapping services. The results of the analysis indicate that the AQIP fees in Rule 2202 were at the lower end of the cost ranges established, and, therefore, appropriate at this time. Staff indicated their commitment to continuously monitor the car scrapping activities and appropriately adjust the AQIP fees in the future to reflect the market conditions. Committee Chair Haggard asked staff about employees who opted into the one year option and the possibility of these employers integrating into the three year option. Staff indicated that they are looking into the issue and that an appropriate recommendation will be made to the Mobile Source Committee as part of the future AQIP funding recommendations.

Boardchairman Mikels inquired about the competitiveness among vehicle scrappers. Staff indicated that as the program progresses, competition will increase which may further reduce the cost of offering car scrapping services. Staff indicated that there are sufficient vehicles in the Basin to scrap well into the year 2002. There are currently four approved vehicle scrappers with several interested parties filing applications. At the request of Boardmember Hewitt, staff will be holding a conference on the "best use of AQIP funds." Staff will also periodically survey existing scrappers to assess market conditions and determine if a fee adjustment to the AQIP is necessary.

Ron Mertz of ECO Scrap stated that his company will experience a financial loss during the first year if the cost to scrap vehicles is lowered. Dr. Paul Boyce of Commuter Services Group stated that his company would be forced to stop offering the car scrapping service if the fees are further lowered. Boardmember Loveridge asked the two scrappers what their fee threshold was to maintain their business. Dr. Boyce responded with an estimate of $900 - $950 per vehicle.

Boardmember Soto expressed her concern that those individuals who scrap vehicles may be lower-income individuals who need to sell their vehicles to obtain basic needs. Boardmember Soto stated that individuals should be given more money than the current rate in order to be compensated for the replacement of their vehicle.

2. Status Report on REACH Task Force

Staff gave an overview on the issues discussed at the December 6th REACH Task Force meeting. The attitude surveys are near completion. Staff stated that an additional $260,000 has been added to the original contract amount to facilitate a fourth survey. This survey will be utilized to determine voter acceptability regarding revenue spending.

The Task Force has three issues to resolve to complete the network-based analysis on alternative pricing rates. They are: 1) How is the region defined? 2) Will VMT outside of the region be exempted from fees; and 3) Will vehicles driven within the region that are registered outside of the region be included in the fee structure?

3. Update on Intercredit Trading Study

Staff distributed (Attachment V) a summary of issues and options. Staff has extended the public comment period to January 12, 1996 and will be presenting the study results with recommendations and an action plan to the Board in February. John Billheimer asked if there was a ranking or factor being considered for the different pollutants. Staff stated that they are primarily concentrating on NOx. Staff is also closely monitoring the national policies on how ERCs and NSR will be used.

The remaining items on the agenda were carried over to the next meeting scheduled in January. To formally discuss the Intercredit Trading Study results, staff will also schedule a Planning Committee meeting in January and notify Boardmembers from both the Planning and Mobile Source Committees.

4. Public Comment

There were no public comments.