BOARD MEETING DATE: July 7, 2006
AGENDA NO. 27

Mobile Source Committee

SYNOPSIS:

The Mobile Source Committee met Friday, June 23, 2006. 

Following is a summary of that meeting.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive and file the attached report.

Roy Wilson
for Jane Carney, Chair
Mobile Source Committee

Attendance

The meeting started at 9:05 a.m.  Present were Committee Chair Jane Carney, Committee Vice Chair Roy Wilson (via videoconference) and Committee Members Ron Loveridge and Gary Ovitt. 

INFORMATION ITEMS:

Dr. Matt Miyasato, Technology Demonstrations Manager, gave a brief staff presentation on the emissions from the currently available (Model Year 2006) hybrid electric vehicles.  The current standards for passenger vehicles were presented followed by a comparison of emissions from hybrid electric, gasoline, CNG, and diesel vehicles. Comparisons were made based on the certification data for hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides; greenhouse gas emissions were also compared based on the reported U.S. EPA fuel economy ratings for the different vehicles. The data show that light duty hybrid electric vehicles, if designed for fuel economy, can have significantly lower criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions. Although there are clean gasoline vehicles on-par with hybrid electric vehicles, there are also many other gasoline models with substantially higher emissions (ULEV and LEV). For heavy-duty urban bus engines, the gasoline hybrid system and the CNG engines have lower NOx emissions when compared to the diesel and even the diesel hybrid systems. The other emissions (HC, CO, and PM) are all fairly low for all engines and fuel types.  Overall, staff cautions that these data are based on the certification requirements and may be different in real-world driving; this is an ongoing concern that needs to be addressed by the AQMD and CARB.

Paul Wuebben, AQMD Clean Fuels Officer, presented an overview of the Ethanol Forum and Technical Roundtable held at the AQMD on June 15, 2006.  The goals of the Forum were two fold:  to obtain the latest technical information related to the use of ethanol (in low level blends as well as E-85 fuel ethanol for use in flexible fuel vehicles); and to help frame policy options in the context of the revisions being drafted for the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan.  Permeation emissions associated with ethanol use are a major concern identified at the meeting.  Revisions to the ARB’s Predictive Model are being developed which will attempt to address these emissions, but there are several areas of uncertainty in this regard.  For both low-level blends and E-85, there is need for significantly greater data and sensitivity analysis. 

One area of particular interest to the MS Committee members was the current practice of using Phase II gasoline (containing 11% MTBE) rather than Phase 3 gasoline (containing 5.7% ethanol) as the basis for CARB new vehicle certification, especially in light of the fact that MTBE use is now banned in California.  The Committee members urged the staff to retain a very active role with regard to the whole area of ethanol use, including the CARB Predictive Model Workshop process.  The Committee noted that there are many interrelated issues which are a direct and urgent concern to the District, including ambient air quality, energy diversification, and sustainable energy considerations in the context of GHG and climate change concerns.  Staff noted that the next steps in this process will be to issue a summary document for stakeholders and the public which identifies the key issues and concerns addressed during the Technical Roundtable, and suggests appropriate next steps to help fashion appropriate oxygenate fuel policy in the context of the AQMP revisions. 

The Committee indicated that the Predictive Model update process has important ramifications for the District, and directed staff to work closely with the CARB in this regard.  Staff was directed to explore with CARB and the appropriate stakeholders possible options for obtaining better and more up-to-date data as the process moves forward.  The Committee directed staff to work with CARB to address the need for real-world certification fuels, since current certification fuel specifications do not match Phase 3 in-use fuels.  Mayor Loveridge requested staff to discuss the upcoming Clean Alternative Energy Initiative (Proposition 1196)[1] at the next meeting of the Mobile Sources Committee.  Board member Carney noted that it is also appropriate to place this item before the Legislative Committee, given the complexity and scope of the measure.  Staff was requested to provide the Committee a similar presentation on the meeting held at the District on June 22, 2006 regarding Plug-in Hybrid Electric (PHEVs)vehicles, as well as a similar summary of the upcoming PHEV Forum and Technical Roundtable being planned for July 12, 2006.

This item was deferred to the July meeting.

Shashi Singeetham gave a recap of the recently completed ‘Mow Down Air Pollution’ 2006 Electric Lawn Mower Exchange Program.  The presentation included slides on the seven events, outreach element, registration options, and a typical exchange site layout.  The presentation also included pictures taken at various stages of exchange and a four-year program summary. 

5)       Rule 2202 Activity Report

          Written report submitted.  No comments.

6)       Monthly Report on Environmental Justice Initiatives – CEQA Document
          Commenting Update

          Written report submitted.  No comments.

7)       Report on Scientific, Technical & Modeling Peer Review Group

          Written report submitted.  No comments.

8)       Other Business

           None.

9)       Public Comment

None.

The meeting adjourned at 9:31 a.m.

Attachment

  SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
MOBILE SOURCE COMMITTEE
APRIL 28, 2006

ATTENDANCE ROSTER

[1] Establishes $4 billion program over 10 years to reduce oil and gasoline usage by 25%, with research and production incentives for alternative energy, alternative energy vehicles, energy efficient technologies, and for education and training.  Funded by tax of 1.5% to 6%, depending on oil price per barrel, on producers of oil extracted in California.