Back

Adopt Proposed Rule 1192 - Clean On-Road Transit Buses

SYNOPSIS: 

Proposed Rule 1192 will require transit fleet operators with 15 or more buses to purchase rule compliant buses when adding or replacing vehicles in an existing fleet or forming a new fleet.

COMMITTEE: 

Mobile Source, March 24, 2000, April 28, 2000 and May 26, 2000, Reviewed.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt the attached resolution:

1. Certifying the attached Final Program Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Fleet Vehicle Rules; and
   
   
2. Adopting Rule 1192 – Clean On-Road Transit Buses

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env.
Executive Officer

Background

The recent results from the AQMD Multiple Air Toxic Exposure Study (MATES-II) indicates that mobile source emissions are major contributors to the potential cancer risk in the South Coast Air Basin. In addition, mobile source emissions have become the major emission sources to the ozone, fine particulate matter and carbon monoxide air quality problem in the South Coast Air Basin. Despite current regulatory actions that have reduced overall mobile source emissions dramatically over the past twenty years and will continue emission reductions in the future envisioned in the AQMP, additional mobile source emissions reductions are needed in the near-term to reduce population exposure to mobile source toxic air pollutants. As such, the AQMD Governing Board has directed staff to evaluate ways to reduce mobile source emissions within the AQMD’s regulatory authority.

Under the California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 40919(a)(4), "serious" or worse ozone nonattainment areas may require "the use of a significant number of low-emission motor vehicles by operators of motor vehicle fleets." The definition of "low-emission motor vehicles" is further defined in HSC, Section 39037.05. Section 39037.05 excludes the use of diesel fuel in the "low-emission" vehicle definition.

In addition to Section 40919(a)(4), under HSC Section 40447.5 the AQMD may adopt rules requiring public and private fleets with 15 or more vehicles to acquire "methanol or alternatively equivalent clean burning alternative fuel vehicles when adding to or replacing vehicles in an existing fleet or purchasing vehicles to form a new fleet" and to require that these vehicles be operated substantially on alternative fuels.

Many of the larger transit agencies and several municipal transit agencies operating in the South Coast Air Basin have embarked on programs to purchase cleaner alternative fuel urban buses over the past several years. The largest transit agency in the South Coast Air Basin, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) also has the largest fleet of compressed natural gas (CNG) buses in the nation. LACMTA is celebrating its 1000^th CNG bus in June 2000. Other transit agencies such as Orange County Transit Authority, Omnitrans (in San Bernardino county), Riverside Transit Authority, and Sunline Transit have alternative fuel bus purchase policies. Sunline Transit located in the Coachella Valley is operating completely on CNG buses. Orange County Transit Authority is in the process of purchasing new buses to operate on liquefied natural gas.

In February 2000, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted regulations requiring transit agencies to reduce nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions from urban buses (vehicles with gross weight over 33,000 pounds). The transit bus rule provides two paths for transit agencies to follow: a "diesel" path and an "alternative fuel" path. Under the "diesel" path, urban bus manufacturers must produce buses with engines that meet more stringent nitrogen oxide exhaust emission standards for transit operators. In addition, "zero emission buses" would be introduced by 2008. Under the "alternative fuel" path, transit operators would purchase alternative fuel buses and zero-emission buses would be introduced into the fleet beginning in 2010. Transit agencies must retrofit existing buses to reduce particulate matter emissions under either paths and new bus purchases under the diesel path must meet more stringent emission standards. By January 31, 2000, transit agencies must declare which path to pursue.

The AQMD had requested that CARB provide specific provisions in the transit bus rule to allow local districts with more severe air quality problems the ability to require transit agencies within their jurisdictions to pursue more stringent emission reductions for buses (i.e., to require fleets within their jurisdiction to choose the "alternative fuel" path). CARB indicated that AQMD has the authority currently to adopt its own fleet rule for transit operators in the District, and explicit language was not necessary.

Proposal

For PR 1192, staff is proposing that upon adoption of the rule, transit operators with 100 or more transit vehicles (vehicles used for public transportation that weigh from 14,000 to 32,999 pounds and urban buses) purchase alternative fuel transit vehicles when adding or replacing transit vehicles in their fleet. For transit operators with 15 and up to 99 transit vehicles, the rule implementation would begin July 1, 2001 with new purchases being alternative fuel transit vehicles.

PR 1192 exempts up to ten transit vehicles used for testing/evaluation purposes, paratransit vehicles, school buses, transit vehicles used for non-public transportation such as employee or prisoner transportation, and motorcoaches that travel out of the district. Contracts to purchase transit vehicles signed prior to the adoption of the rule would not be affected by the rule. However, a signed contract with multiple options that are exercised after the rule is adopted would be subject to the rule.

Public Process

In November 1999, staff originally proposed an umbrella on-road motor vehicle fleet rule (PR 1190) and a preliminary draft staff report was prepared and released in December 1999. Two public workshops were conducted (December 21, 1999 and January 12, 2000) at which over 700 members from the public attended in total. The most significant comments made were: costs associated with alternative-fueled vehicle purchases and maintenance, development of alternate-fueling infrastructure, availability of alternative-fueled engines/chassis specifications to meet certain medium- and heavy-duty vehicle applications, and that the rule development schedule was too aggressive and more time was needed for public review and input.

In response to these comments, staff proposed to separate the original PR 1190 into several rule development efforts that cover each of the specific fleet vehicle types (i.e., light- and medium-duty vehicles, transit vehicles and urban buses, refuse collection vehicles, school buses, street sweepers, heavy-duty vehicles, and airport ground access). The separation of PR 1190 into seven separate rules provided the public a better understanding of the impacts of the rule development and staff the ability to address rule implementation issues more specifically. In addition, the rule development schedule was extended to allow more time for the public to review and comment on each of the rule proposals. The preliminary draft staff report (dated December 1999) continued to serve as the staff report for the seven separate rule proposals.

Draft rule language for PR 1192 (the second in the series of "PR 1190" fleet rules), was released at the February 16, 2000 public workshop. Additional public workshops were conducted on March 10, 2000 and May 10, 2000 to solicit further public comments. A draft report on PR 1192 was released in May 2000 that represented a revision to the December 1999 Preliminary Draft Staff Report on PR 1190.

In addition to the public workshops, a transit bus working group was formed to provide review and comments on PR 1192 rule development efforts. The transit bus working group focused on implementation issues relative to those transit agencies that have not purchased alternative fuel vehicles in the past and would require more time to implement PR 1192 in order to have the fueling infrastructure in place. In addition, the working group discussed hybrid electric vehicle technologies that several transit agencies are interested in purchasing. In response to the need for additional time for smaller transit operators, PR 1192 provides a longer implementation lead time for transit operators with fewer than 100 transit vehicles.

Policy Issues

AQMD staff received a significant number of comments relative to the development of the public fleet rules. Since PR 1192 affects a smaller sector of fleet operations most of comments relative to PR 1192 were on the need for additional time to implement the rule and the costs associated with alternative fuel vehicle purchases, maintenance, and operations. Comments were also made that PR 1192 effectively excludes any future purchases of conventionally fueled buses. Cummins, the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA), and the South Coast Clean Air Partnership (SCCAP) proposed alternative rule compliance approach that would allow transit agencies to continue to purchase diesel fueled buses as long as these vehicles are retrofitted with particulate after treatment control devices and using low-sulfur diesel fuels or meet a fleet-wide NOx average. (Each of the parties proposed various forms of the alternative that could be either a mandatory or voluntary and would reduce either NOx or particulates. Cummins proposed a voluntary program for both NOx and particulates. EMA proposed a voluntary program for only particulates. SCCAP proposed a mandatory program for NOx and particulates.) Transit agencies under the proposed voluntary program would be provided incentives for their participation. (These proposals did not provide funding for such incentives.) However, under the mandatory approach no incentives are provided. Staff raised concerns relative to the efficacy of such an alternative program since the fleet-wide averages can be met by the larger transit agencies at this time. Secondly, transit agencies must begin retrofitting diesel buses with the control devices under the CARB transit bus rule. In addition, there are no assurances under a voluntary program in achieving emission reductions or providing lower toxic exposure. Lastly, staff questioned whether there would be a significant number of transit agencies that would be interested in such a program given the examples of incentives mentioned.

Relative to hybrid electric vehicle technologies, CARB has not made a determination that these technologies are cleaner than conventionally-fuel vehicle technologies and CARB staff will be evaluating the in-use emissions associated with these technologies and develop a protocol to certify these engine technologies. CARB expects to complete this work by the spring of 2001. AQMD staff indicated that staff will work with CARB in its evaluation of the hybrid electric technologies and depending on CARB’s findings may propose amendments to PR 1192 to allow for the purchase of these vehicles.

AQMD staff has been in discussions with several of the smaller and larger transit operators who do not operate alternative fuel vehicles and will continue to work with these operators to implement PR 1192 in a feasible and cost-effective manner.

Emission Reductions

PR 1192 would affect approximately 5000 transit vehicles in the current public fleets today. Based on an average purchase/replacement rate of 10 percent per year, it is estimated that by 2010 nitrogen oxide emissions would be reduced by up to 197 tons/year and particulate matter emissions by 11 tons/year. Since the CARB transit bus rule provides for more stringent future nitrogen oxide emission standards that may or may not be met by engine manufacturers, the nitrogen oxide emission benefits are the maximum benefits should nitrogen oxide emission control technology not be developed to meet the more stringent nitrogen oxide emission standards in the CARB transit bus rule. In addition, there would be a reduction in air toxic emissions. Finally, emission reductions beyond those identified for transit vehicles may occur in other sectors due to technological innovations related to Rule 1192 implementation.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the AQMD, as the Lead Agency, has reviewed the proposed fleet vehicle rules, which includes proposed Rule 1192. Pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines Section 15252, AQMD staff has prepared a Draft Program Environmental Assessment (PEA) for the proposed project which was released on March 10, 2000 for a 45-day public review and comment period. All comments received have been addressed and incorporated into the Final PEA for the proposed fleet vehicle Rules including PR 1192. The Draft PEA analyzed the potential adverse environmental impacts which are comprised primarily of cross-media impacts, including air quality, water resources, transportation, energy, hazards, public services and solid/hazardous waste, from installing air pollution control equipment. The analysis concluded that potential adverse impacts could occur on short-term construction related air quality impacts. These impacts were at significant levels due to refinery modifications needed to comply with PAR 431.2. However, some adverse air quality environmental impacts were found relative to PR 1192, primarily due to construction-related emissions that would occur with the building of the alternative fuel fueling infrastructure needed for those transit agencies that do not have alternative fuel vehicles at this time. Due to the bulk of this document, it has been initially provided to the Governing Board and parties providing written comments on the Draft PEA. Members of the public may receive copies upon request from the Public Information Center at no charge.

Socioeconomic Assessment

AQMD staff has also prepared a socioeconomic assessment for the Proposed Fleet Vehicle Rules which includes PR 1192. Based on the draft assessment, it is envisioned that the majority if not all of the capital cost differential and operational costs associated with the purchase of alternative fueled transit vehicles could be cover by federal funding as well as local programs such as the Carl Moyer Program and the Mobile Source Emission Reductions Review Committee (MSRC). Comments were raised that there would be additional operational and maintenance costs associated with alternative fuel transit vehicles compared to conventionally fueled vehicles. The economic assessment was conducted under three funding scenarios: no available funding, full funding, and most likely available funding. The draft assessment indicates that under the most likely funding scenario, the cost effectiveness of PR 1192 would be $15,000 per ton of criteria pollutant reduced and the cost-effectiveness is $110,000 per ton under the no available funding scenario. The cost-effectiveness includes capital and operational costs including facility maintenance upgrades as well. However, some operators are currently experiencing cost savings for daily operation on natural gas. Due to the bulk of this document, it has been initially provided to the Governing Board and parties providing written comments on the draft document. Members of the public may receive copies upon request from the Public Information Center at no charge.

Resource Impacts

PR 1192 would require public transit operators to purchase alternative fuel transit vehicles at the time the public transit operators are adding or replacing transit vehicles in their fleets. It is envisioned that public transit operators will specify in their procurement process the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles. Staff believes that there will be minimal resource impacts on the AQMD since fleet operators keep records of their purchases and procurement information. There will be small administrative costs associated with random inspection of fleet operators for rule implementation and enforcement purposes and the tracking of the penetration of low-emission vehicles into the market. However, staff is proposing the creation of a Fleet Rule Implementation Officer position.

Recommendation

Staff recommends that proposed Rule 1192 be adopted. The proposed rule will provide criteria pollutant air quality and toxic air pollutant benefits.

Attachments

A. Summary of PR 1192 Proposal
B. Rule Development Process
C. Resolution
D. Proposed Rule 1192 Language
E. Staff Report
F. Socioeconomic Assessment
G. Final Environmental Assessment

/ / /