The Technology Committee met on February 25, 2000. Major items included a discussion on SCAQMD membership in the California Fuel Cell Partnership, Technology Advancement items reflected in the regular Board Agenda for the March and April Board meetings, and written-only monthly updates of environmental justice initiatives 7, and 10. A summary of these topics with the Committee's comments is provided, together with an attendance roster. The next Technology Committee meeting will be on March 24, 2000 at 12:00 p.m. in CC-8.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive and file.
Hal Bernson, Chair
Technology Committee
Attendance: Present were Committee Members Norma Glover and Leonard Paulitz. Hal Bernson and Roy Wilson participated by video-teleconference.
Committee Discussion
SCAQMD Membership in the California Fuel Cell Partnership as a Full Member - This item was referred back to the Committee for discussion by the Governing Board at their January 21, 2000 meeting. It was heard by the Administrative Committee on February 11, 2000 and recommended for approval.
Dr. Chung Liu reviewed the background on this matter. He indicated the District would participate in non-public relation activities, and that there would be an annual review of our participation. ARB staff member Catherine Lentz participated by video-teleconference on behalf of the Partnership and gave a brief overview of its organization and structure. Joe Irvine of the Public Relations Office of the Partnership was also in attendance by video-teleconference. Moved (Paulitz), seconded (Glover) and unanimously recommended for approval.
March Board Agenda Item
Adopt Update of Technology Advancement Plan for Clean Fuels Program and Approve Technology Advancement Annual Report - The passage of SB 98 (Alarcon) amended and extended the Clean Fuels Program until January 1, 2005. Amendments under Health and Safety Code Section 40448.5.1 now require submittal of the Technology Advancement Plan and Annual Report for the AQMD’s Clean Fuels Program to the State legislature by March 31 of each year, following Board approval. The Technology Advancement Plan outlines planned project expenditures for 2000. Based on communications with specified organizations, staff has determined that the proposed projects are not duplicative. The Annual Report summarizes accomplishments for 1998-99. The Plan and Annual Report will be updated and reviewed annually as required by legislation. Moved (Wilson), seconded (Paulitz) and unanimously recommended for approval.
April Board Agenda Item
Execute Contract to Co-Sponsor the Development and Evaluation of Battery Dominant Hybrid Electric Vehicle Systems - The Hybrid Electric Vehicle Center at UC Davis has been pioneering the development of battery dominant hybrid electric vehicle (BDHEV) systems. UC Davis has proposed the development of grid-charged BDHEVs with the latest clean engine technology to achieve super ultra low emission vehicle targets. In the proposed project, the powertrain and control algorithms of a recently developed light-duty BDHEV will be optimized, and a new medium-duty battery dominant Chevrolet Suburban HEV will be designed and constructed. AQMD’s contribution to this project shall not exceed $400,000. Co-funding will be provided by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), $2,090,500: Visteon, $175,000; and Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), $100,000. Moved (Glover), seconded (Paulitz) and unanimously recommended for approval.
Monthly Reports on Environmental Justice Initiatives 7 and 10
Written-only monthly status reports were received and filed. Copies of these reports are attached hereto as Attachments E and F.
Other Business - There was no other business.
Public Comment Period - There was no public comment.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:45 p.m.
Attachments
Attachment A - Attendance
Attachment B - Minutes of Technology Advancement Advisory Group 11/17/99 meeting
Attachment C - Technology Advancement Advisory Group Summary of Comments on the
Technology Advancement Plan for the Clean Fuels Program
Attachment D - Clean Fuels Advisory Group Summary of Comments on the Technology
Advancement Plan for the Clean Fuels Program
Attachment E - Environmental Initiative # 7 Status Report
Attachment F - Environmental Initiative #10 Status Report
TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1999, MEETING MINUTES
21865 E. Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 - Conference Room CC-8
TAAG MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dr. Blair Folsom, GE Energy & Environmental Research Corporation
John D. Harper, Jr., Small Business Coalition
Michael La Cavera, Westway Terminals
Dan Moran, McCurdy Body Works
Edward Becker for Robert Nicksin, Southern California Gas Company
Gary Stafford, Terra Furniture
Kyle Davis for Bill West, Southern California Edison
TAAG MEMBERS ABSENT:
Tom Cackette, California Air Resources Board
Tim Carmichael, Coalition for Clean Air
Nancy Deller, California Energy Commission
Steven Douglas, American Auto Manufacturers Association
Dr. Henry Gong, Rancho Los Amigos Hospital
Gina Gray, Western States Petroleum Association
Shang Quen Hsiung, Federal Transit Administration
Dr. Pandit Patil, Department of Energy
Dr. Robert Zweig, Clean Air Now
AQMD Staff
Chris Abe, Air Quality Specialist
Andy Abele, Manager Clean Fuels Program, Technology Advancement
Ranji George, Program Supervisor
Abid Latif, Air Quality Specialist
Fred Minassian, Air Quality Specialist
Donna Vernon, Secretary
Mel Zeldin, Assistant Deputy Executive Officer, Science & Technology Advancement
1. Introductory Remarks
Welcome
Andy Abele, Manager Clean Fuels Program, Technology Advancement, called the meeting to order at 10:10 a.m. and welcomed the TAAG Members.
Self Introductions Self-introductions were made and new members introduced.
2. Status of Technology Advancement Office Programs
Technology Demonstrations
Mr. Abele reviewed the establishment of the Technology Advancement Office, its mandate to co-fund projects to develop, demonstrate and commercialize new low/zero-emission technologies, and the program's organization into demonstration programs and technology implementation.
FY 1998-99 Summary
Technology Advancement funding sources and advancements were reviewed along with the FY 1998-99 project distribution, project selection mechanisms and key selection criteria.
Funding Status
It was explained that contract funding availability derives from the Clean Fuels Fund, FY 99-00 Clean Fuels Program revenues, and the Advanced Technology Fund balance, and each of these sources was reviewed in depth.
Carl Moyer Program
An overview was given of the Carl Moyer Program, noting the 1998-99 awards and an in-depth review of allocations for on-road funding, off-road funding and infrastructure funding.
3. Advisory Group Roles
There are two advisory groups for the Technology Advancement Office:
Technology Advancement Advisory Group
- One of six standing AQMD advisory groups contributing to the Advisory Council.
- They coordinate the AQMD program with related local, state and national activities; assess overall program direction; and identify new project areas and cost-sharing opportunities.
- Membership consists primarily of stakeholders whose interests include stationary-source VOC-related technologies as well as clean fuels.
SB 98 Clean Fuels Advisory Group
- This is a codified advisory group with 13 members.
- Members have expertise in clean fuels technology/policy or public health; and are appointed from scientific, academic, entrepreneurial, environmental and public health communities.
- This advisory group makes recommendations regarding the Clean Fuels Program projects, plans, and annual reports, and approves the annual report prior to its submittal to the AQMD Governing Board.
Review of SB 98
Mr. Abele reviewed the Senate Bill 98 Clean Fuels Program amendments and explained that they:
- Extend funding authority until January 1, 2005
- Codify the Technology Advancement Office
- Formalize the planning process
- Formalize the reporting process
The formalized planning process requires an annual plan be specified for the Clean Fuels Program with a 30 day public notice prior to public hearing by the AQMD Governing Board or the Technology Committee. This notice is to be sent to specified "interested parties" as well as the general public. Requirements for the Technology Advancement Plan for the Clean Fuels Program include:
- AQMP technology needs for attainment.
- Consistency with funding mechanisms.
- Expected costs and benefits.
- Coordination and non-duplication with specified organizations.
The formalized reporting process requires an annual report due March 31 of each year with approval by the SB 98 Clean Fuels Advisory Group and the AQMD Governing Board. It is then submitted to the Office of Legislative Analyst and Committees of the Legislature responsible for improving air quality. The specific contents of the Plan are:
- Description of core, priority technologies.
- Analysis of clean fuels program impact and benefits.
- Project descriptions.
- Summary of progress toward program goals.
- Future funding priorities.
4. Technology Advancement Plan Update
Process review
Mr. Abele reviewed the process to update the Plan and summarized.
PON #9900-A Pre-Proposal Summary
Program Opportunity Notice #9900-A is an open solicitation for new project ideas.
Technical Priority Areas
Technical priority areas of this PON were identified as fuel cells for transportation applications; diesel alternatives; electric and hybrid electric technologies; and off-road applications of alternative fuels.
Proposed Allocations
A listing of the proposed allocations was handed out and discussed. Individual member comments were addressed by staff as each technical priority area was reviewed.
5. Closing Remarks
Review of Action Items
Mr. Abele committed to distributing a complete draft Technology Advancement Plan to all Advisory Group members in two to three weeks. Advisory Group members were advised that their review and comments would be needed within about two weeks to be incorporated in a timely manner.
Next TAAG Meeting
The frequency of meetings was discussed. There was a consensus to reduce the frequency from quarterly meetings to twice a year. It was suggested that the Technology Advancement Advisory Group meetings should be scheduled to be at approximately the same time as the Clean Fuels Advisory Group to facilitate coordination between the two groups. It was also suggested that the meetings should be scheduled to allow for early review of the Technology Advancement Plan and at some mid-point to review progress and accomplishments for the year. Future meeting dates will be announced some time after the inaugural Clean Fuels Advisory Group meeting on January 13, 2000.
Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
Attachment C
Technology Advancement Advisory Group
Summary of Comments on the Technology Advancement Plan for the Clean Fuels Program
California Energy Commission
The Plan should include other stakeholders, cost-share partners, and related government agencies in the various projects. The Plan does not identify other projects where the AQMD will ask for cost-sharing.
Response: The Plan is structured as an enabling document that identifies and describes projects that the AQMD will consider implementing in the next year. The AQMD fully intends to seek cost-share partners when the projects are implemented through our normal procurement and contract award processes. Rather than prematurely identifying cost-share partners at this early planning stage, the AQMD seeks the input from stakeholders, such as those that make up the Technology Advancement Advisory Group, regarding those projects of most interest and, specifically, those projects they would be interested in cost-sharing as they are implemented. Such input would affect our timing to implement projects to ensure coordination of fiscal year budgets as needed.
On specific projects, we (CEC) would show caution on projects related to home refueling of gaseous fuels.
Response: We agree with the general observation of showing caution, however, significant progress appears to have been made with respect to safety, reliability, and costs of home refueling appliance technology. One of the objectives of the referenced proposed project would be to determine if the technological progress made addresses the concerns noted with respect to building and safety codes. If successful, such home refueling appliances may be able to expand the utility of SULEV natural gas vehicles and increase their penetration into the marketplace beyond fleet vehicles.
We (CEC) would encourage expenditures in the fuel cell projects.
Response: We agree and look forward to coordinating projects to achieve our mutual goals.
We (CEC) also encourage the attention paid to infrastructure issues. We should make sure that we coordinate efforts to reduce duplication and to strengthen projects.
Response: We agree and look forward to coordinating projects to achieve our mutual goals.
The Plan includes no mention of current AQMD projects. A status report on projects would be enlightening.
Response: The Plan is intended only to identify and describe future projects that the AQMD will consider implementing in the next year. We publish a separate annual report that describes the progress of our current projects and our program. We will ensure that our next annual report is forwarded to all members of the Technology Advancement Advisory Group.
California Air Resources Board
General Comments:
Your Technology Advancement Plan is thorough and well developed, and (we) are looking forward to our cooperative relationship continuing through the implementation of this plan.
Response: None.
Re: 2000 SIP. Zero and near-zero technologies are essential wherever possible in the mobile source area. Retrofit technologies and other near-term measures to reduce in-use emissions are also essential. The ARB encourages you to continue to aggressively pursue these types of control strategies.
Response: As you note, the Plan identifies a number of projects targeting zero and near-zero technologies for mobile source applications, including fuel cells, electric and hybrid electric technologies, and inherently clean-burning alternative fuel engines. The intent is to support a portfolio of projects, within the constraints of available funding that includes a range of technologies from near-term to longer-term.
Re: ZEVs. Although long-term research is still important, we are at a critical point where we need to move toward implementation issues to ensure this important advanced technology achieves its potential. (We) are pleased to see several implementation-oriented projects - such as the ones on fast-charging, infrastructure technologies, and innovative applications.
Response: We agree that implementation issues need to be addressed for zero-emission vehicle technologies, including battery electric and fuel cells. We have traditionally shied away from fundamental research and focused on development and demonstration of near-to-market technologies. We believe there is still a need to develop and demonstrate ZEV technologies beyond the solutions to the implementation issues identified. As previously noted, our objective is to continue supporting a portfolio of near to longer term technologies. We intend on working with ARB and other Advisory Group members to find an appropriate balance as the projects are implemented.
Re: Heavy-duty testing. The ARB has recently obtained operational control of the heavy-duty testing facility at the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). Your Technology Advancement Plan includes some specific heavy-duty testing and other heavy-duty programs where testing may be useful. (We) urge you to coordinate these programs with us while the programs are in the formative stages.
Response: We agree that the testing facility at MTA is a valuable asset and will work with ARB in coordinating testing of our heavy-duty vehicle demonstration projects.
Comments on Specific Proposed Projects
2000M2-1 and 2000M2-2: The projects discuss the emissions goal of 0.5 g/bhp-hr NOx for heavy-duty alternative fuel engines, but do not discuss timeframes.
Response: As noted, the NOx emissions goal for the two proposed projects is 0.5 g/bhp-hr. With respect to timeframes, these development and demonstration projects are to begin during 2000 with expected completion in about two years. Additional field demonstrations to gain long-term verification of performance, spanning up to two years, may be needed prior to commercialization. Certification and ultimate commercialization would be expected to follow.
2000M2-4: This project should focus on medium- and heavy-duty vehicle on-board gaseous storage systems.
Response: We expect to develop gaseous fuel storage systems that could apply to the full range of vehicles, from light-duty to heavy-duty. We do not concede at this time that gaseous fuels will not be used in future light-duty vehicles given that early introduction fuel cell vehicles will use hydrogen, and light-duty CNG fueled automobiles, the lowest emission vehicles produced, are available today. The objective to develop light-weight, compact, and low-cost gaseous fuel storage systems could help make these clean fuels more attractive to consumers, beyond fleet users.
2000M3-1 and 2000M3-3: The projects should focus on refueling stations for medium- and heavy-duty vehicle fleets. It is unclear how much benefit a smaller, less expensive home refueling station would be toward encouraging CNG sales to private citizens.
Response: The objective of 2000M3-1 is to develop natural gas compressor stations that would lower cost, be more efficient, and require less maintenance than current compressor stations to make natural gas more readily accepted by fleets. With respect to 2000M3-3, we agree with the general observation that private citizens have had little incentive to purchase CNG vehicles. One of the objectives of this project would be to determine if the technological progress made addresses concerns with respect to building and safety codes as well as cost. If successful, such home refueling appliances may be able to expand the utility of SULEV natural gas vehicles and increase their penetration into the marketplace beyond fleet vehicles.
2000M4-2: Hydrogen refueling projects should consider the ARB's proposed requirements for the transit bus regulations.
Response: The proposed project not only considers the ARB’s proposed requirement with respect to transit buses but looks beyond those requirements to develop enabling technologies to make hydrogen readily available to early introduction fuel cell vehicles in general. The objective is to develop and demonstrate packaged systems in a compact footprint that can generate, compress, and dispense hydrogen when and where needed. Conceptually, these distributed hydrogen systems could provide the initial infrastructure for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles based on either the reformation of natural gas or the electrolysis of water.
2000M4-1 and 2000M4-3: Significant private sector investment is being used to reduce the cost of fuel cell components. It is not clear to what extent relatively modest public sector funds could be used to accelerate this process.
Response: We concur with the general observation that private sector investment will lead the advancement of technologies to reduce the cost of fuel cell systems. However, we believe that some components related to the surrounding balance-of-plant and, especially, fuel storage and handling of fuel cells need coordinated leadership that the public sector could provide. Specifically, there is not a consensus for fuel choice for fuel cell vehicles – a decision path that could well be coordinated through a public-private partnership. That is the specific objective of 2000M4-1. The objective of 2000M4-3 is to support the field demonstration of the fuel cell technologies that the private sector develops. We have found that such controlled demonstrations are essential in introducing end users
to new technologies. Controlled demonstrations allow OEMs to uncover and fix weaknesses of systems under real-world driving conditions prior to commercial introduction to end users and the general public.
2000M5-1, 2000M5-5, and 2000M5-6: The projects should focus on the development, evaluation, and demonstration of technologies with the most potential for near-term commercialization.
Response: We understand the need of the ARB to emphasize near-term technologies. As previously noted, we agree that implementation issues need to be addressed for zero-emission vehicle technologies. However, we believe it is still advantageous to develop and demonstrate ZEV technologies beyond the solutions to the implementation issues identified. As previously noted, our objective is to continue supporting a portfolio of near-to longer-term technologies. Specifically, the development and demonstration of advanced batteries, although longer term, could play an important role in the viability of future battery electric vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles, both internal combustion engine powered and fuel cell powered.
2000M6-1 through 2000M6-6: The off-road sector is a large emissions contributor encompassing a wide variety of equipment. A successful demonstration on one type of equipment may have minimal carry-over on other types of equipment - and the actual penetration that could be achieved with alternative fuels in some of the categories may be minimal. When allocating limited funds, it is important to estimate the true emissions that ultimately could be impacted by a successful demonstration.
Response: We concur with the comments made regarding proposed projects in the off-road sector. When implementing off-road projects, the potential emissions impact, the size of the market for proposed applications, and the expected penetration of the new technologies will be key criteria that will be considered in the evaluation of proposals.
Attachment D
Clean Fuels Advisory Group
Summary of Comments on the Technology Advancement Plan for the Clean Fuels Program
General Discussion/Comments from January 13, 2000 Meeting
There was general consensus that the Plan needs elements of a strategic plan particularly with respect to timeframes for proposed projects.
Response: A section was added to the Plan that addresses elements of strategic planning, timeframes for needed technologies, and links to the AQMD long-term Air Quality Management Plan.
There was a general consensus that a longer-term plan, specifically a five-year plan, would be useful for both planning and for establishing a yardstick with which to measure progress.
Response: We believe that such a five-year plan is outside the scope of the Annual Plan for expenditures; however, we do agree that it would be helpful. We propose to develop a five-year plan separate from the annual expenditure plan and would like to work with the Advisory Group to develop such a long-range plan. We propose to initiate the development process at the next meeting of the Advisory Group on June 7, 2000.
Melanie Marty (OEHHA) suggested that additional funding for public education and outreach is needed to urge general acceptance of clean alternative technologies.
Response: We agree that the program's investment in this area is fairly modest in the draft plan. The allocation for technology transfer was increased in the revised Plan.
Scott Samuelsen (UCI) suggested the need to address toxic emissions from lean-burn low-NOx systems as well as the potential for increased toxics due to reformer reaction conditions. He also suggested that high-temperature fuel cell-gas turbine hybrid systems have the potential for exceptional efficiency and potential application to locomotives.
Response: We agree with the suggestion that toxic emissions need to be addressed in advanced combustion systems and reformers. We will include such evaluations in future combustion or reformer related projects. We have previously funded a feasibility study considering fuel cells in locomotive applications and will include a placeholder in the plan should a viable development and demonstration project develop in the near future.
Nicholas Vanderborgh
The Draft is well written and covers most points. Therefore the comments below are intended to improve the existing draft and should not be interpreted to be critical.
Correlation of Goals and Budget. I suggest that a table be included that compares the technical goals of the AQMD with the funds that are being spent to address those goals.
Response: Given our attempt to maintain as broad a program as possible, it is difficult to simply describe our expenditures. The pie chart distribution to which you refer is an attempt to simplify the planned expenditures at-a-glance. The result is a mixed pie chart that includes technologies, activities, etc. To address your comments and clarify expenditure priorities, additional discussion has been added to both the Plan and Annual Report to link identified technical goals and priorities with proposed funding allocations.
Fuels Technology/Engine Technology. It is apparent to all finally that the fuels and engines are interrelated. I suggest that it would be sensible for AQMD to undertake engine research for specific fuels. The point: using old engines with new fuels can miss the real benefits of the new fuels.
Response: We agree. This is the approach that the Technology Advancement Office has pursued since the inception of the program. In the early years of the program, for example, retrofit gasoline to LPG or CNG conversion kits were not necessarily low emission. Over the years, dedicated alternative fuel engines developed by original equipment manufacturers have evolved into the cleanest engines available.
Global vs. U.S. Technology. It is a big world out there and most countries have the same problems we do. Arguably US manufacturers are not technology leaders in the global energy markets. I suggest that AQMD begins a global technology watch and then uses numbers gathered there as specifications for participating in AQMD programs. The danger is that, after lots of money being spent, superior technology will exist elsewhere.
Response: This is a good observation and, historically, following international technology developments is something the Technology Advancement Office has tried to do. For example, the AQMD provided early support to Ballard, a non-U.S. company, and to biofiltration for VOC control, a technology developed in Europe. The suggestion to use global technologies to set benchmarks, if they are superior to U.S. technology, is sound. This may be one way to encourage U.S. manufacturers to recognize that they may be behind and get around reluctance of end users to buy other than American. Some U.S. manufacturers are realizing that foreign companies may be further ahead in some
technologies and have formed strategic partnerships. This is evidenced by some domestic automakers using foreign-built light-duty diesel engines.
Modeling for Technical Impact. The AQMD goals focus on the Basin. I suggest that each proposed project needs to have some thought about the (emission reduction) effects of technical success.
Response: The proposed projects in the Plan include descriptions of the expected emission reduction performance or goals and, in some cases, the total inventory that might be impacted. In most cases, however, the potential penetration into the marketplace and, thus, overall impact, have not been directly addressed for each project given the speculative nature of potential market penetration projections. Additional discussion has been added regarding overall impact for the identified technical priority areas based on AQMP estimates for needed emission reductions and estimated cost effectiveness.
Urban Engineering. The LA area continues to grow and therefore environmental advances are simply factors that buy time. However, longer-term solutions are also necessary. The real long-term solution is to find ways to live better with less energy. I suggest that it would be very interesting to fund some model projects to explore new communities and new ways of doing things.
Response: Although an important consideration, urban engineering studies are beyond the scope of funding constraints available to the Technology Advancement Office. Please note that overall urban planning in the Basin is lead by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Air quality issues related to urban planning and measures proposed to mitigate resulting emissions are addressed in the AQMD Air Quality Management Plan through input from
SCAG.
Spending Money Wisely. The AQMD budget is solid, but not important in the energy picture. Therefore you need to pick projects with big impact. This is already being done. I suggest this is one of the hardest parts of your activity, and one that the Advisory Group needs to help with.
Response: We agree and look forward to working with the Clean Fuels Advisory Group as the Plan is implemented.
Jason Mark
General Comments: Your work in years past has had more impact on developing clean alternatives than many other research programs with substantially larger budgets.
Your technology advancement priorities are well placed. In particular, I believe three
areas deserve emphasis for technology advancement (in order of importance): fuel cells, on-road diesel alternatives, and off-road applications. I would suggest that your emphasis should be on zero- and near-zero emission technologies, as measured by all key criteria air pollutants as well as air toxics.
Response: We generally agree with the technical areas you suggest emphasizing. Historically, we target zero- and near-zero emission technologies within the constraints of our funding, which is focused on alternative fuels. The challenge of identifying and developing near-zero heavy-duty technologies remains, although we are actively supporting heavy-duty alternative fuel engines with a NOx emissions target of 0.5
g/bhp-hr.
Recognizing that your funding is relatively limited, your efforts to attract cost-sharing seem prudent. However, the number of potential projects seems inordinately large for the amount of funds available. Focusing – and ultimately limiting – the number of projects funded would not only permit greater investments in high-potential projects but also ease project management and oversight from the District.
Response: The Plan is structured as an enabling document that identifies and describes projects that the AQMD will consider implementing in the next year. It is not a strict budgetary document. Because of legislative requirements, the Plan includes more projects than will be funded in a year. This was done intentionally to allow flexibility in implementing the most promising projects as they evolve. Your comments are valid with respect to investing in high-potential value projects and we will give them due consideration as we implement proposed projects in the Plan.
As you consider funding specific projects, I encourage you to place your greatest financial emphasis on fuel cell, on-road diesel alternative, and off-road technologies that achieve zero and near-zero emission levels. In practice, I believe this would mean adjusting proposed expenditures in your plan such that fuel cell funding is increased relative to other categories.
Response: As noted previously, we generally concur with your suggested areas of emphasis. With respect to proposed allocations, some adjustments have been made that incorporate some increase in fuel cell funding. The adjustments may be seen as modest, but they reflect our desire to maintain a broad program. Our desire for a broad program is in recognition of the large number and wide variety of sources that contribute to the Basin emission inventory that will likely require a similar variety of technological solutions.
Brian Runkel
In general, I am very supportive of both reports. Your staff deserve tremendous credit for the outstanding work you have put in on the reports.
I would like to echo the comments on cost effectiveness needing to be a key criteria in choosing projects. Maybe one of the Big 6 accounting firms could be hired to do an overall assessment in that regard.
Response: We agree with your comment that cost effectiveness needs to be a key criteria in project selection. This is a criteria we consider in our project selection process as we implement the Plan. Our approach has been to look at cost effectiveness based on estimates of future penetration, benefit, and cost of technology when commercialized. We look to the estimates for cost effectiveness identified in the AQMP as guidance, a discussion that has been added to both the Plan and Annual Report.
I also agree with the comments regarding the need to look at more than one year at a time.
Response: The discussion during the January 13, 2000 meeting with the Advisory Group led to a general consensus that a five-year plan would be helpful both in terms of planning and in setting a yardstick with which to measure progress. We believe that such a five-year plan is outside the scope of the Annual Plan for expenditures; however, we do agree that it would be helpful. We propose to develop a five-year plan separate from the annual expenditure plan and would like to work with the Advisory Group to develop such a long-range plan. We propose to initiate the development process at the next meeting of the Advisory Group on June 7, 2000.
I would urge you to take another look at your definition of "commercialized," which I now understand is determined by the certification status. I would point out that just because a technology or process is certified, doesn’t mean it is successfully commercialized. Its performance in the market determines that.
Response: We fully appreciate your comment with respect to the definition of "commercialized." For practical purposes, it is a question of technology maturity and which funds are most appropriate to support the technology. Our technology research, development, and demonstration funds are primarily used to get technologies to the point of certification. Our incentive programs, such as the Moyer Program, are used to help offset the incremental costs of new "commercialized" technologies when they are first brought to market and before volume production and market demand reduce the cost of technologies. It is one of the objectives of the various incentive programs throughout the state to help "jump start" the commercial introduction of low emission technologies to gain their emission benefits sooner rather than later.
Attachment E
Monthly Status Report
Environmental Justice Initiative No. 7 - Cleanup Incentives for Diesel
Monthly Status Report
February 2000
The Governing Board will pursue a set of Initiatives at the local, state, and federal level to incentivize the early clean-up or removal of diesel engines in the Basin. Research indicates that low-income communities and communities of color experience disproportionate air quality impacts associated with diesel engine use.
Support Funding Incentives
The first meeting of the AB 1571 Carl Moyer Advisory Board met at ARB Sacramento on Tuesday, February 8, 2000. The Board will evaluate the progress of the Carl Moyer Program and make recommendations to the Governor and Legislature, no later than March 31, 2000, on the future of the program, including a long-term funding mechanism. At the request of ARB staff, AQMD staff made a presentation to the Board on the AQMD's Carl Moyer Program. The Board will hold three additional meetings -- February 29 at ARB El Monte; March 15 in San Francisco, and March 27 in Fresno.
The Governor’s proposed 2000-01 budget includes a number of alternative fuel initiatives. These initiates include funding for school bus replacement, fuel cell buses under the California Fuel Cell partnership, purchase of alternative fuel vehicles for the state fleet, establishment of alternative fuel infrastructure, and funding of hydrogen infrastructure and vehicle projects. Absent from the proposed budget is funding for the Carl Moyer Program.
Promote Technology Advancement
A Request for Proposals has been released to support development of very low emission heavy duty, natural gas engines with a NOx emission target of 0.5 g/bhp-hr. The $2.5 million RFP includes the financial support of the California Energy Commission and DOE. Proposals are due March 31, 2000.
Staff is participating as a member of the selection committee for a CEC RFP soliciting projects to reduce emissions from heavy-duty engines. The CEC received 14 proposals for this $1.5 million solicitation. All the proposals were for diesel emission reduction strategies. Final selection of projects is expected by April 5, 2000.
Coordination with Transit Districts
Staff continues to monitor the activities of the Basin’s transit districts in regards to new bus purchases.
Staff is participating in a transit working group as part of the Rule 1190 process.
Conduct Public Education and Outreach
Staff is assisting in the proposed Rule 1190. Staff is providing input to the staff report for the rule, and is participating in several industry-specific working group to address concerns and determine the best ways to implement this series of rules.
Staff participated in the MATES II Study Session, held February 2, 2000, at the AQMD, presenting information on available alternative fuel, heavy-duty engine technologies and availability of incentive funding.
As part of an existing outreach contract, the AQMD will be cosponsoring a March 15, 2000 transit workshop. This workshop will focus on available alternative fuel technologies for urban and shuttle buses, and will include discussions by local transit properties on their experiences with alternative fuel buses.
Statewide Coordination
The Incentive Program Implementation Team, composed of representatives of the air districts, CEC and ARB, met on February 15 to discuss the status of the current Carl Moyer Program, proposed program criteria changes, status of emission certifications, and other program areas. ARB staff requested assistance from the air districts in compiling information to respond to requests from the Carl Moyer Advisory Board regarding project life, NOx and particulate emission reductions, and project cost-effectiveness.
Attachment F
Environmental Justice Initiative #10
Public Comment, Rules 1401 and 1402
Status Report
February 2000
Initiative: The Governing Board will re-open for public comment the toxics significant thresholds for cancer and non-cancer impacts contained in Rule 1402 - Control of Toxic Air Contaminants from Existing Sources, and consideration of adding additional compounds and non-carcinogenic impact prevention into Rule 1401 - New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants.
Status of Efforts: Rule 1402
Key Changes Proposed
– retains significant risk level at maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) of 100 in
one million and Hazard Index (HI) of 5
– adds an action risk level of 10 in one million
– establishes effective dates for the action risk level
– adds a cancer burden of 0.5
– reduces the time for required reductions
– establishes criteria for extensions
– adds emissions inventory requirements for specific TACs and industries
– establishes a schedule for emissions inventory updates for AB2588 Phase I facilities
with pending Health Risk Assessments (HRAs)
– adds additional progress reports and public notification requirements for facilities
above the action risk level
Technology-based Approach
– sets for a technology-based approach for specific industries with large numbers of
facilities, smaller sources, where a technology-based source-specific rule approach
is more appropriate
– establishes a three-year timeframe to develop technology-based source-specific
rules for specific industries
– more effective for several industries
large number of sources
many are smaller businesses
better resource utilization
– ~7,500 facilities
– industries
biomedical sterilization
dry cleaning
metal plating
motion picture film processing
rubber
wood stripping
Challenge
– Meet rule objectives
expedite reductions
sensitive to impacts and resource issues
– attempt to balance divergent viewpoints
Different Viewpoints
– industry concerns
no change to significant thresholds
action level of 50 in a million or a specified cancer burden
renewable extensions with economic criteria
– Environmental concerns
1 or 10 in a million and HI = 1
1 extension allowed for technical feasibility only
more stringent inventory and public notification requirements
large number of sources