VIDEOCONFERENCE MEETING AIR RESOURCES BOARD …

VIDEOCONFERENCE MEETING

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

CALEPA HEADQUARTERS

BYRON SHER AUDITORIUM

SECOND FLOOR

1001 I STREET

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2020

9:03 A.M.

JAMES F. PETERS, CSRCERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER LICENSE NUMBER 10063

J&K COURT REPORTING, LLC 916.476.3171

A P P E A R A N C E S

BOARD MEMBERS:

Ms. Mary Nichols, Chair

Ms. Sandra Berg, Vice Chair

Mr. Hector De La Torre

Dr. John Balmes

Mr. John Eisenhut

Supervisor Nathan Fletcher

Senator Dean Florez

Assembly Member Eduardo Garcia

Mr. John Gioia

Ms. Judy Mitchell

Mrs. Barbara Riordan

Supervisor Phil Serna

Dr. Alexander Sherriffs

Professor Daniel Sperling

Ms. Diane Takvorian

STAFF:

Mr. Richard Corey, Executive Officer

Ms. Edie Chang, Deputy Executive Officer

Mr. Steve Cliff, Deputy Executive Officer

Mr. Kurt Karperos, Deputy Executive Officer

Ms. Ellen Peter, Chief Counsel

Ms. Veronica Eady, Assistant Executive Officer


A P P E A R A N C E S C O N T I N U E D

STAFF:

Ms. Annette Hebert, Assistant Executive Officer

Ms. Heather Arias, Division Chief, Transportation andToxics Division

Mr. Paul Arneja, Air Resources Engineer, In-Use Control Measures Section, Mobile Source Control Division(MSCD)

Ms. Tiffanie Be, Air Pollution Specialist, Emission Inventory Development Section, Air Quality Planning and Science Division(AQPSD)

Ms. Richelle Bishop, Manager, Citations and Hotline Section, Enforcement Division(ED)

Mr. Tony Brasil, Branch Chief, Transportation and Clean Technology Branch, MSCD

Mr. Pippin Brehler, Senior Attorney, Legal Office

Mr. Steve Brisby, Branch Chief, Field Operations Branch, ED

Mr. Michael Carter, Assistant Division Chief, MSCD

Mr. Ian Cecere, Attorney, Legal Office

Ms. Angela Csondes, Manager, Marine Strategies Section, TTD

Mr. Craig Duehring, Manager, In-Use Control Measures Section, MSCD

Mr. Dave Edwards, Assistant Division Chief, AQPSD

Mr. Jonathan Foster, Air Resources Engineer, MarineStrategies Section, TTD

Mr. Nick Kane, Air Pollution Specialist, Citations and Hotline Section, ED

Mr. Jack Kitowski, Division Chief, MSCD



STAFF:

Ms. Nicole Light Densberger, Staff Air Pollution Specialist, Marine Strategies Section, TTD

Mr. Aron Livingston, Assistant Chief Counsel, Legal Office

Ms. Heather Quiros, Branch Chief, Diesel Programs Enforcement Branch, ED

Mr. Nicholas Rabinowitsh, Senior Attorney, Legal Office

Mr. Todd Sax, Division Chief, ED

Ms. Bonnie Soriano, Branch Chief, Freight Activity Branch, TTD

Ms. Sydney Vergis, Assistant Division Chief, MSCD

Mr. Earl Withycombe, Air Resources Engineer, CentralValley Air Quality Planning Section, AQPSD

ALSO PRESENT:

Mr. Mark Abramowitz, Community Environmental Services

Ms. Yasmine Agelidis, LA County Truck and Bus Coalition

Ms. Leslie Aguayo, Green Landing Institute

Mr. Zach Amittay, E2

Mr. Sam Appel, Bluegreen Alliance

Mr. Paco Arago, IBEW Local 11

Mr. Ruben Aronin, California Business Alliance for a Clean Economy

Ms. Christine Austria-Lozoya, IBEW Loca 11

Ms. Shayda Azamian, Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability

Mr. Nate Baguio, Lion Electric



ALSO PRESENT:

Ms. Angie Balderas, My Generation Campaign

Ms. AZ Banguis, Little Manila Rising

Mr. Will Barrett, American Lung Association

Mr. Thomas Becker

Ms. Nidia Bello, CAUSE

Mr. Victor Benavidez, CAUSE

Mr. Roman Berenshteyn, Bay Panning Coalition

Mr. Nico Bouwkamp, California Fuel Cell Partnership

Ms. Silvia Calzada

Ms. Soledad Camacho, CAUSE

Mr. Todd Campbell, Clean Energy

Ms. Brittany Caplin, Proterra

Mr. Michael Carr, Shell

Ms. Morgan Caswell, Port of Long Beach

Mr. Christopher Canon, Port of os Angeles

Mr. Tim Carmichael, SoCalGas

Mr. John Clements, Hummingbird EV

Mr. Kristian, Corby, California Electric Transportation Coalition

Ms. Caroline Correa, Brightline Defense

Mr. Paul Cort, Earthjustice

Mr. Jon Costantino, Trillium

Mr. Joe Dalum, Odyne Systems



ALSO PRESENT:

Mr. Carlo De La Cruz, Sierra Club

Ms. Paola Dela Cruz-Perez, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice

Ms. Stan DeLizo, Kenworth Truck Company

Ms. Susan Dembrowski, SoCal 350 Climate Action

Mr. Tim DeMoss, Port of Los Angeles

Ms. Mirella Deniz-Zaragoza, Warehouse Worker Resource Center

Ms. Beverly DesChaux, Electric Auto Association

Ms. Janet Dietzkamei, CVAQ

Ms. Cindy Donis, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice

Mr. Tom Dow, Carnival Corporation

Ms. Katie Dykes, Connecticut Department of Energy andEnvironmental Protection

Mr. Tyson Eckerle, Deputy Director, California Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development(GO-Biz)

Mr. Sean Edgar, Clean Fleets

Mr. Steve Ellis, Honda Motor Company

Mr. Tommy Faavae, IBEW Local 11

Ms. Dawn Fenton, Volvo Group

Mr. Steve Flint, New York Department of Environmental Conservation

Mr. David Flores, Environmental Health Coalition

Ms. Diane Flowers



ALSO PRESENT:

Ms. Yessenia G., CAUSE

Ms. Katherine Garcia, Sierra Club

Ms. Kimberly Garcia, CAUSE

Mr. Michael Geller, Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association

Mr. David Glassman, Now Coal in Oakland

Mr. Theral Golden, West Long Beach Association

Ms. Cristel Gonzalez, CAUSE

Mr. Robert Graham, Plug-In Hybrid Coalition

Mr. Ben Granholm, Western Propane Gas Association

Ms. Peg Hanna, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Mr. Adam Harper, California Construction and Industrial Materials Association

Ms. Kathy Hoang, Partnership for Working Families

Ms. Laurie Holmes, Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association

Ms. Regina Hsu, Earthjustice

Mr. Thomas Jelenic, PMSA

Ms. Janet Johnson

Mr. Vazken Kassakhian, SoCal Edison

Ms. Yassamin Kavezade, Sierra Club

Mr. Ryan Kenny, Clean Energy

Ms. Kathy Kerridge, 350 Bay Area Action



ALSO PRESENT:

Ms. Sila Kiliccote, eIQ Mobility

Ms. Lee Kindberg, MAERSK

Ms. Christine Kirby, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

Mr. William Koons, Carson Steering Committee

Mr. Bernie Kotlier, IBEW

Ms. Jennifer Kropke, IBEW

Ms. Heather Kryczka, Natural Resources Defense Council

Ms. Alana Langdon, Nikola Corp.

Mr. Ricardo Lara, California Insurance Commissioner

Mr. Thomas Lawson, California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition

Ms. Stephanie Ly, Transpower Meritor

Ms. Kathy Lynch, Lynch and Associates

Mr. Bill Magavern, Coalition for Clean Air

Mr. Kevin Maggay, SoCalGas

Ms. Jed Mandel, Engine Manufactures Association

Ms. Jennifer Martinez, Sierra Club

Ms. Yvonne Martinez Watson, Sierra Club

Mr. Jesse Marquez, Coalition for a Safe Environment

Ms. Lucia Marquez, CAUSE

Mr. Brian McDonald, Marathon Petroleum Corp

Ms. Lisa McGhee, GreenPower Motor Company



ALSO PRESENT:

Mr. John McNamara, CR&R

Mr. Art Mead, Crowley Marin Corp.

Ms. Gabriela Mendez, CCAEJ

Ms. Sherrie Merrow, Natural Gas Vehicles for America

Mr. Paul Miller, Executive Director, NESCAUM

Ms. Neena Mohan, California Environmental Justice Alliance

Ms. Odette Moran

Ms. Mayra Munguia, CAUSE

Mr. Michael Munoz, LA Alliance for a New Economy

Ms. Urvi Nagrani

Mr. Lauren Navarro, Environmental Defense Fund

Mr. Chris Nevers, Rivian Automotive

Mr. Jimmy O'Dea, Union of Concerned Scientists

Ms. Veronica Pardo, Resource Recovery Coalition of California

Mr. Chris Peeples, AC Transit

Mr. Jeff Pickles, Green Grid

Mr. Marvin Pineda, International Longshore Warehouse Union

Mr. Ray Pingle, Sierra Club

Ms. Cynthia Pinto-Cabrerra, CVAQ

Ms. Yesenia Ponce, CAUSE

Mr. Patricio Portillo, Natural Resources Defense Council

Ms. Pat Pressel, North Embarcadero Coalition



ALSO PRESENT:

Mr. Joshua Regalado, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice

Ms. Catherine Reheis-Boyd, Western States Petroleum Association

Ms. Ashley Remillard, Agility Fuels Solutions

Ms. Tiffany Roberts, Western States Petroleum Association

Mr. Derrick Robinson, Fresnans Against Fracking

Ms. Erin Rodriguez, Union of Concerned Scientists

Ms. Janet Rogers, North Embarcadero Coalition

Ms. Laura Rosenberg, Fresnans Against Fracking

Mr. Hugh Ross, 350 Bay Area Action

Ms. Sarah Sachs, Ceres

Ms. Naomi Sanchez

Ms. Janice Sandoval

Mr. Wladimir Sarmiento-Darkin, Linde

Mr. Tim Sasseen, Ballard Power

Mr. Douglas Schneider, World Shipping Council

Mr. Andy Schwartz, Tesla

Mr. John Shears, Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies

Mr. Mark Sheldon

Mr. Chris Shimoda, California Trucking Association

Ms. Leah Silverthorn, California Chamber of Commerce

Mr. Richard Sinkoff, Port of Oakland



ALSO PRESENT:

Mr. Jim Smith, Teamsters Union

Ms. Jillian Soloman, Motiv Power Systems

Captain Saul Stashower, Woodbridge Marine

Ms. Jack Symington, Los Angeles Clean Tech Incubator

Ms. Kathy Taylor, Washington State Department of Ecology

Ms. Taylor Thomas, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice

Ms. Heather Tomley, Port of Long Beach

Mr. Bill Van Amburg, CALSTART

Ms. Andrea Vidaurre, CCAEJ

Mr. Gustavo Villa

Mr. Peter Warren, San Pedro Homeowners Coalition

Mr. Steve Wallauch, California Association of Port Authorities

Ms. Janet Whittick, California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance

Ms. Joy Williams, Environmental Health Coalition

Mr. David Wooley, UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy

Ms. Francis Yang, My Generation Campaign, Sierra Club

Mr. David Yow, Port of San Diego

Ms. Elizabeth Yura, Bay Area Air Quality Management District

Mr. Bill Zobel, Hydrogen Business Council


I N D E X PAGE

Call to Order and Roll Call 1

Opening Remarks by Chair Nichols 2

Item 20-6-1 Chair Nichols 6 Mr. Becker 8 Executive Officer Corey 10 Board Discussion and Q&A 12 Motion 12 Vote 13

Item 20-6-2 Chair Nichols 14 Motion 15 Vote 15

Item 20-6-3 Chair Nichols 20 Executive Officer Corey 22 Staff Presentation 24 Mr. Eckerle 38 Mr. Miller 45 Ms. Dykes 54 Ms. Kirby 56 Ms. Hanna 58 Mr. Flint 61 Mr. Van Amburg 63 Mr. Baguio 65 Ms. Fenton 66 Mr. Peeples 68 Mr. Kenny 69 Mr. Robinson 71 Mr. Magavern 73 Mr. Mandel 74 Ms. Rosenberger 76 Ms. Remillard 78 Ms. Marquez 80 Mr. Sasseen 82 Ms. Pinto-Cabrerra 84 Mr. Pingle 86 Mr. Arago 87 Ms. Dembrowski 89 Ms. Navarro 91 Mr. Regalado 93 Ms. Holmes 95


I N D E X C O N T I N U E D PAGE

Mr. Amittay 97 Ms. Merrow 99 Ms. Taylor 101 Ms. Ponce 103 Ms. Agelidis 104 Mr. Munoz 106 Mr. Graham 108 Ms. Correa 109 Mr. McNamara 111 Mr. Shears 115 Mr. Corby 117 Ms. Hoang 119 Mr. Kassakhian 121 Ms. Austria-Lozoya 122 Ms. Bello 123 Ms. Lynch 125 Mr. Flores 127 Mr. Bouwkamp 128 Mr. Faavae 130 Mr. Carmichael 131 Mr. Clements 133 Ms. Munguia 134 Ms. Sachs 136 Mr. Schwartz 138 Mr. Aronin 140 Mr. Zobel 143 Ms. Camacho 144 Mr. Barrett 145 Mr. Lawson 147 Ms. Donis 149 Mr. Campbell 150 Ms. Aguayo 152 Ms. Solomon 154 Mr. Nevers 155 Ms. Kropke 157 Ms. Calzada 158 Mr. Kotlier 159 Ms. Williams 161 Mr. Sarmiento-Darkin 162 Mr. Yang 164 Ms. Vidaurre 165 Mr. Wooley 167 Ms. Kiliccote 168 Mr. Cort 170 Mr. Canon 173 Mr. Harper 174



Ms. Whittick 176 Mr. O'Dea 177 Mr. Portillo 179 Ms. Mendez 181 Ms. Caplin 183 Mr. Geller 185 Ms. Dietzkamei 187 Ms. Gonzalez 189 Mr. Pickles 189 Ms. Pardo 192 Ms. Roberts 194 Ms. Dela Cruz-Perez 196 Mr. Maggay 198 Ms. Caswell 199 Ms. Thomas 201 Ms. Silverthorn 203 Ms. Mohan 205 Ms. Deniz-Zaragoza 207 Ms. Ly 209 Ms. Yesenia G. 210 Ms. DesChaux 213 Mr. Granholm 214 Mr. Yow 216 Ms. Martinez 218 Mr. Costantino 219 Mr. Shimoda 220 Ms. Nagrani 222 Mr. Marquez 224 Ms. Sandoval 225 Ms. Martinez Watson 227 Ms. Kerridge 228 Mr. Smith 229 Mr. Appel 230 Mr. Ellis 232 Ms. Langdon 234 Mr. DeLizo 236 Mr. Abramowitz 237 Mr. Sheldon 238 Mr. Villa 239 Mr. Dalum 241 Mr. Carr 243 Mr. Benavidez 245 Ms. Sanchez 247 Ms. Katherine Garcia 248 Ms. Azamian 250 Ms. Balderas 251



Mr. Symington 253 Ms. McGhee 254 Ms. Moran 256 Ms. Kavezade 258 Mr. Ross 260 Mr. Edgar 262 Commissioner Lara 264 Ms. Kimberly Garcia 265 Board Discussion and Q&A 267 Motion 315 Vote 315

Item 20-6-4 Chair Nichols 317 Executive Officer Corey 319 Staff Presentation 320 Mr. Magavern 332 Ms. Reheis-Boyd 334 Mr. Warren 336 Mr. Barrett 338 Mr. Marquez 340 Mr. Wooley 342 Ms. Hsu 344 Ms. Rogers 345 Ms. Pressel 347 Mr. Mead 349 Mr. Faavae 351 Mr. Schneider 352 Mr. Berenshteyn 354 Ms. De La Cruz 355 Ms. Tomley 356 Mr. Wallauch 358 Mr. Glassman 360 Ms. Austria-Lozoya 361 Mr. McDonald 362 Captain Stashower 364 Ms. Kindberg 366 Ms. Rodriguez 368 Ms. Yura 369 Mr. Dow 371 Ms. Kryczka 373 Ms. Williams 375 Ms. Banguis 377 Ms. Rosenberger 378 Mr. Jelenic 379 Mr. Yow 381



Mr. Pineda 383 Ms. Flowers 386 Mr. DeMoss 387 Ms. Kavezade 390 Mr. Golden 391 Ms. Kavezade 392 Mr. Sinkoff 393 Mr. Koons 395 Board Discussion and Q&A 396

Item 20-6-5 Chair Nichols 432 Executive Officer Corey 433 Staff Presentation 433 Mr. Koons 447 Board Discussion and Q&A 450

Public Comments Mr. Peeples 452 Ms. Johnson 454

Adjournment 456

Reporter's Certificate 457


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

P R O C E E D I N G S

CHAIR NICHOLS: Good morning, everybody. The

June 25th, 2020 public meeting of the California Air

Resources Board will now come to order.

And the clerk bill please call the roll

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Dr. Balmes.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Here.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Mr. De La Torre?

Mr. Eisenhut?

BOARD MEMBER EISENHUT: Here. Good morning.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Supervisor Fletcher?

BOARD MEMBER FLETCHER: Here.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Senator Florez?

BOARD MEMBER FLOREZ: Here.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Assembly Member Garcia?

ASSEMBLY MEMBER GARCIA: Present.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Supervisor Gioia?

BOARD MEMBER GIOIA: Here.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Ms. Mitchell?

BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL: Here.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Senator Monning?

Mrs. Riordan?

BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Supervisor Serna?


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

BOARD MEMBER SERNA: Here.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Dr. Sherriffs?

Dr. Sherriffs?

BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: Here.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Good morning.

BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: Yes. Yes.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Professor Sperling?

BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Here.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Ms. Takvorian?

BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: Yes, present.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Vice Chair Berg?

VICE CHAIR BERG: Here.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Chair Nichols?

CHAIR NICHOLS: Here.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Madam Chair, we have a

quorum.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you very much.

First of all, let me begin today's proceedings by

saying that it's great to be with you again, even though

we continue to be separated in space, but we can meet in

time. We hope that everything will return to normal soon.

But in the mean time, air pollution has not gone away.

The climate keeps changing and the State keeps working.

So we are conducting our regular Board meeting

today for the third time since the pandemic first became


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

apparent. And we're doing it via Zoom. And this

proceeding has been organized to reflect as closely as

possible the way we would normally conduct a Board

meeting, but there are certainly going to be a few

differences. And we request everybody's patience while we

work through the process.

I think the technology gets better and better.

Thank you Zoom, but -- and we also learn to work with it.

But nevertheless, there could be some glitches along the

way. And if we do need to stop and deal with anything, we

hope that you will all be patient and understanding.

We have interpretation services today in Spanish.

And so if you are using Zoom, you can click a button

labeled interpretation on the Zoom screen. And if you

click that button and select Spanish, you will then be

able to hear the meeting in Spanish.

Madam translator, would you please translate

that.

(Thereupon it was translated in Spanish.)

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. I'm now going to ask

the Clerk to provide a little bit more detail about how

the procedures for the public hearing will work.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Thank you, Chair Nichols.

Good morning, everybody. My name is Ryan Sakazaki. I'm

one of the Board clerks. I will provide some information


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

in how public participation will be organized for today's

meeting.

If you wish to make a verbal comment on one of

the Board items, or if you want to make a comment during

the open comment period at the end of today's meeting, you

must be using the Zoom webinar or calling in by telephone.

If you are watching the webcast on Cal-Span, but do not --

but do want to comment, please register for Zoom or call

in. Information for both can be found on the public

agenda. To make a verbal comment, we will be using the

raise hand feature on Zoom. If you wish to comment -- if

you wish to speak on a Board item please virtually raise

your hand to let us know you wish to speak at the

beginning of that Board item. To do this, if you are

using a computer tablet, there is a raise hand button. If

you are calling in on the telephone, dial star nine to

raise your hand.

Even if you have previously registered and

indicated which item you wish to speak on, please raise

your hand at the beginning of the item if you want to

speak. If you don't raise your hand, your chance to speak

will be skipped.

If you are giving your verbal comment in Spanish,

please indicate so at the beginning of your testimony and

our translator will assist you. During your comment,


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5

please pause after each sentence to allow the interpreter

to translate your comment into English. When the comment

period starts, the order of commenters will be determined

by who raises their hand first. I will call each

commenter by name and then activate each commenter when it

is their turn to speak. For those calling in, I will

identify you by the last three digits of your phone

number. We will not show a list of commenters. However,

I will be announcing the next three or so commenters in

the queue so you are ready to testify and know who is

coming up next.

Please note, that you will not be appearing by

video during your testimony. I would like to remind

everyone, commenters Board Members, and CARB staff to

please state your name for the record before you speak.

This is important in this new remote meeting setting and

especially important to those calling in to testify on an

item.

There is the normal three-minute time limit for

each commenter, though that can change at the discretion

of the Chair. During public testimony, you will see a

time on your screen. For those calling in by phone, we

will run a -- the timer and let you know when you have 30

seconds left and when your time is up.

If you wish to submit written comments today,


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6

please visit CARB's send-us-your-comment page or look to

the public agenda on our website for a link to send these

documents electronically. Comments will be accepted on

each item until the chair closes the record for that Board

item.

I would like to give a friendly reminder to

everyone to please mute yourself when you're not speaking

to avoid background noise. And if you do speak, please

speak from a quite location. If you experience any

technical difficulties please call (805)801-3676 so an IT

person can assist. Again that's (805)801-3676.

Thank you. I'd like to turn the microphone back

to Chair Nichols now.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Sorry, Chair Nichols. We

can't hear you. Are you muted?

CHAIR NICHOLS: I'm now unmuted. Sorry.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Yes.

CHAIR NICHOLS: I pressed the wrong button.

Okay. It's time to move to the consent calendar

then. We do have two items which we believed did not

require a full public hearing or a staff report, but they

can be removed if necessary.

So the first item on the consent calendar is Item

20-6-1, which is the 70 parts per billion ozone SIP

submittal. If you do wish to comment on this item, please


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7

click the raise hand button or dial star nine now.

Do we have any indication of comments being

received?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Yes. Madam Chair. We

currently have two people with their hands raised.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. And are these the

commenters that had previously been determined not to

relate to this item in particular or are these other

commenters?

Is our counsel present. Someone had reviewed

this. Well --

SENIOR ATTORNEY BREHLER: Chair Nichols thi is

Pippin Brehler in the Legal Office. I'm not sure which of

those commenters are. Mr. Sakazaki, is there a way to

determine who those commenters are and if they were --

CHAIR NICHOLS: The reason I'm asking is because

there were two commenters that had been previously

determined to be appropriate for the public comment

period, but not to be specifically addressing this item.

SENIOR ATTORNEY BREHLER: Right. So Mr.

Sakazaki, I was wondering if you could either tell me or

otherwise tell Chair Nichols who those commenters are to

see if we can see if they were the ones who had made a

comment more appropriate for the general comment.

CHIEF COUNSEL PETER: One personal -- this is


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8

Ellen Peter, Chief Counsel. One of the people is a phone

number, so let's just call that person.

CHAIR NICHOLS: All right. Then we should remove

this item from the consent calendar for now and call the

witnesses.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Yes, chair. The first

commenter is a phone number ending in 557. I have

activated microphone, if you'd like to begin your

testimony.

MR. BECKER: Yeah. Hi. My name is Tom Becker.

I want to make sure everybody can hear me before I begin.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Yes, we can hear you.

MR. BECKER: I submitted a written comment about

30 minutes ago on this item. So I just want to have

everybody aware -- both staff and the Board aware of my

public comment. I just don't want to have somebody say

that, they go to a federal court and said, oh, we didn't

know. It's there. I'm just letting you know there's a

public comment sitting there.

Number two, when I was a kid back in 1973, I went

to Don Bosco Technical Institute in Rosemead, California.

And I was in the automotive technology program. I was

among the first people to ever get a smog inspector's

license from the Bureau of Auto Repair.

And just only a few miles away, maybe five miles


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9

down by the El Monte Airport, the Air Resources Board

opened up their new testing lab. It was brand new. I

remember this. We used to go over there for field trips.

And sometimes the engineers would come over to Don Bosco

Tech and talk to us, especially those of us in the

automotive school and studying emission controls.

And I talked to Dr. Haagen-Smit himself. And I

do remember he smoked cigarettes. That's one thing I

remember about the man that he smoked cigarettes. I don't

know.

Anyway, Dr. Haagen-Smit said something to me and

to our class. And he said that everything that could be

fixed as far as emission controls from cars, if we just

reduced the number of cars and reduced the number of

vehicle miles traveled by those cars and trucks. And even

though he was in support of increased and improved

emission controls on vehicles, it always stuck in my mind

how he said, you know, if they'd just stop building, and

put the homes closer to where the jobs were, and stopped

expanding the Port of Los Angeles and maybe start building

the stuff here instead of importing it from, at that time,

Japan, he said this would all be fixed.

I wonder if Dr. Haagen-Smit would be shocked by

the real, almost fraud, being committed by CARB staff and

the Board by basically ignoring the reduction of vehicle


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10

miles traveled in lieu of these extreme emission control

standards that you're imposing on trucks and automobiles.

Reduce vehicle miles traveled, reduce the number of cars

and you fix the problem.

And the thing that I submitted to you today, the

written comment that I want to make sure everyone knows.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Excuse me, sir. Thirty

seconds left.

MR. BECKER: Thank you. Is that -- am I done?

Hello?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Twenty seconds.

CHAIR NICHOLS: You have a few seconds.

Okay.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Okay. It looks like he is

disconnected. So that concludes the list of commenters

for this item, Madam Chair.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Oh, we have only the one. Okay.

Mr. Corey, I think we better have you summarize

what this item actually is before we ask the Board to deal

with the resolution.

EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: Will do. Thanks,

Chair. The Federal Clean Air Act establishes planning

requirements for areas that exceed the health-based

national ambient air quality standards. Areas are

designated as nonattainment based on monitored exceedances


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11

of these standards.

In 2015, the U.S. EPA strengthened the ambient

air quality standards for the 8-hour ozone standard from

75 to 70 parts per billion. Effective August 3rd, 2018,

U.S. EPA designated 19 areas in California as

nonattainment for the 2015 70 PPB 8-hour ozone standard

and classified them as marginal, moderate, serious, severe

or extreme. For ozone, the Act requires states to prepare

baseline emission inventories for all areas exceeding the

standard within two years of designation.

Per U.S. EPA guidance, CARB prepared the 2017

baseline emission inventory for NOx and ROG organics for

the ozone nonattainment areas, except for San Diego, which

will be included in their SIP later this year.

Also, within two years of designations, the Act

requires states to submit enforceable transportation

control strategies and transportation control measures to

offset any growth in emissions in VMT or numbers of

vehicle trips for severe and extreme ozone nonattainment

areas.

CARB has prepared the VMT emissions offset

demonstration for these areas, except from Mojave Desert.

And CARB staff is working with the transportation agency

and district on that particular one.

The 70 ppb ozone SIP submittal documents at the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12

baseline emission inventories and VMT emission offset

demonstration required for the 2015 70 ppb 8-hour ozone

standard as part of the State Implementation Plan.

So that concludes my remarks, Chair.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you, Mr. Corey. I think at

this point, we can bring the resolution forward. I would

like to say that I also met Dr. Haagen-Smit at about that

same time that the gentleman who commented did. And I

remember one of his statements, I think some of the Board

members will appreciate this, is that people didn't

actually care about the health effects of ozone. They

really only cared about the view of the mountains. And if

we could just fix that visibility problem, then we'd be

done with all of our work on air pollution.

So he was a brilliant scientist, but he wasn't

necessarily right about everything.

(Laughter.)

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Do I have a motion to

approve this item?

BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Madam Chair, I would be

happy to move this item.

CHAIR NICHOLS: And a second?

VICE CHAIR BERG: Madam Chair, I'll second it,

but we also need to close the record.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes, because it's no longer on


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13

consent, I guess we do. So thank you. We will close the

record then. And we have a motion and a second. So the

Clerk will please call the roll.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Thank you, Madam chair.

Dr. Balmes?

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Aye.


BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: Aye.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Mr. Eisenhut.

Thank you.

BOARD MEMBER EISENHUT: Aye.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Supervisor Fletcher?

Supervisor Fletcher?

Senator Florez?

BOARD MEMBER FLOREZ: Aye.


BOARD MEMBER GIOIA: Yes.


BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL: Yes.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Mrs. Riordan?

BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Aye.


BOARD MEMBER SERNA: Aye.


BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: Yes.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14


BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Yes.


BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: Aye.


VICE CHAIR BERG: Aye.


CHAIR NICHOLS: Aye.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Madam Chair, the motion

passes.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. All right. Let's try

one more time to see if we can make this consent calendar

idea work.

The next item on consent is the Indian Wells

Valley second 10-year PM10 maintenance plan. And this was

put on the consent calendar, but I need to make sure that

we've allowed for anybody who wants to comment on this

item to raise their hand or dial star nine now.

Board Clerk, has anyone signed up to testify on

this item?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Yes, Madam Chair. We have

one person with their hand raised.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Then in that case, we will

proceed to the -- proceed to the comment.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Okay. Our speaker for


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15

this item is Yassamin Kavezade. Yassamin, I have

activated your microphone. If you'd like to unmute

yourself and begin.

Yassamin, are you there?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Well, Madam Chair, she has

not unmuted her microphone.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Do we have a written comment?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: I don't believe so. I

can -- I think we can -- we can -- I think we can proceed

with it as the consent calendar.

CHAIR NICHOLS: All right. Well, in that case, I

guess we go back to the consent calendar and close the

record, and just ask all the Board members if they've had

an opportunity to review the resolution? And if so, could

I have a motion and a second to adopt Resolution 20-18?

BOARD MEMBER FLOREZ: I'll move that, Madam

Chair.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you.

VICE CHAIR BERG: This is Sandy Berg. I'll

second.


Clerk, please call the roll.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Dr. Balmes?

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Yes.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16


BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Mr. Eisenhut?


BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Supervisor -- Supervisor

Fletcher?

Senator Florez?



BOARD MEMBER GIOIA: Aye.


BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL: Yes.








BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Yes.


CHAIR NICHOLS: I heard him say yes.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Okay.

Ms. Takvorian?

BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: Yes.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17



CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes.


passes.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. Dr. Sperling, I don't

know if you have the ability to control the sound level on

your microphone, but you are even quieter than usual.

(Laughter.)

CHAIR NICHOLS: Today. Okay. Thank you. That

item passes and we can return to the regular calendar.

But before we do, I have to take the prerogative of taking

a moment to recognize an occasion here. I am both pleased

and sad to announce that our first incumbent in the

position that was created a few years ago by our Executive

Officer for an Assistant Executive Officer in charge of

environmental justice matters, Veronica Eady, is moving

on. She has accepted a position with a considerable

advancement at the Bay Area Air Quality Management

District. So CARB's loss is very much the Bay Area's

gain, but it's actually a gain for all of us I think in

the State of California.

Veronica created the position of Assistant

Executive Officer. It hadn't existed before. She's done

a terrific job both internally and externally on behalf of


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

CARB. And she has really, I think, made her particular

hallmark the AB 617 Program, where she has been everywhere

in the State of California and worked with all kinds of

stakeholder organizations to turn a brand new legislation

and a new way of doing business for CARB and the air

districts into a truly meaningful and important program.

So I just want to take the opportunity while

she's still here before she moves on to recognize her

tremendous contributions to the state's air quality

programs and to wish her the very best. And I hope she's

embarrassed. Where is she? Right there. I see her.

Because she's at least surprised.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Madam Chair?

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE OFFICER EADY: I am

sufficiently embarrassed.

(Laughter.)

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes. No, let's --

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Madam Chair?

CHAIR NICHOLS: Who was it that had their hand up

just now?

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: John.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes you, John. Yes. Go ahead,

John.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: I just want to echo your

thoughts about Veronica. Having the pleasure of working


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

with her fairly closely as the Chair of the AB 617

Consultation Group, everything you said I agree with, and

I will both personally miss her and miss her contribution

to the implementation of AB 617. So I'm both happy and

sad just like you.

CHAIR NICHOLS: She'll be a tough act to follow.

BOARD MEMBER GIOIA: And can I say -- can I say

that --

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes, Supervisor Gioia.

BOARD MEMBER GIOIA: We're on the receive --

we're on both -- as a CARB member on the giving end and as

an air district member in the Bay Area, we're on the

receiving end.

CHAIR NICHOLS: I know.

BOARD MEMBER GIOIA: So we are excited and

looking forward to having Veronica join us at the Bay Area

and continue to do the work she's done at CARB. And the

Bay Area has -- air district has focused on equity issues.

We've actually created also a committee of our board on

these issues. So it was very -- we're very fortunate.

It's very timely that Veronica will be joining us, because

of our district's commitment. So look forward to seeing

you more in the Bay Area, Veronica.

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE OFFICER EADY: If I can just

say a word, Chair Nichols and members of the Board. I


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

have such mixed feelings about it, because being at CARB

and working with you all has been an incredible honor.

And I want to think that my work here at CARB is what made

me attractive for this position. So thank you all so

much.

And I also want to just take a moment to lift up

my EJ team, which for the first time is fully staffed. So

Trish Johnson, Ryan Atencio, Jose Saldana, Becky Griffin,

Samar Lichtenstein, Leah Asay. And we have two new

members coming on Christal Love-Lazard, and Natalie

Spiegel. They have been amazing. And I hope that I

mentioned them all. I hope I didn't leave anybody out,

but they have also paved the way for me too to go. Their

work with communities has been amazing. And in the Bay

Area, Jose particularly has done some really amazing work.

So I want to lift them up and I want to let you know that

I leave you in very good hands with the eight of them. So

thank you.

And you do have me for one more month, so it's

not goodbye yet. So thank you.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you for everything. All

right.

Let's move then to the next item on the agenda,

which is the proposed Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation.

And again, if you're watching these proceedings and you


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

want to comment on the item, please click the raise hand

button or dial star nine and we will call on you when we

get to the public comment portion of this item.

So this proposed regulation was first presented

to the Board at the December 12th, 2019 public hearing,

and it's back in front of us now for a final decision.

The proposal is part of our comprehensive strategy to

address emissions from motor vehicles and is focused on

accelerating the market for zero-emissions technology.

Exhaust from mobile sources and the fossil fuels

that power them are the largest contributors to the

formation of ozone, greenhouse gases, and toxic diesel

particulate matter. And while we've made significant

progress in addressing these issues over the years, much

more needs to be done to address California's unique

circumstances.

California has been promoting and supporting

transportation electrifi -- electrification in a number of

ways in recent careers. Our Governors have issued several

executive orders directing State agencies to adopt

policies that will reduce emissions, including direction

to accelerate zero-emission vehicle purchases and to

achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. This proposal puts us

squarely on that path.

It would also send a clear market signal for


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

wide-scale electrification of trucks and buses in

California. This will drive investments in manufacturing

and infrastructure that will accelerate the market for

zero-emission trucks.

The growth of the zero-emissions market will

result in the creation of new, green, high-quality jobs

building these vehicles, installing the infrastructure to

support them, and developing a zero-emissions supply chain

in California.

The proposal will also significantly increase

benefits in communities adjacent to the warehouses, ports,

highways, and other locations that are disproportionately

affected by our freight-dependent economy.

Additionally, the proposed regulation includes a

one-time fleet reporting requirement that will be used to

inform future zero-emission vehicles adoption strategies.

Mr. Corey, will you please introduce this item?

EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: Yes. Thanks, Chair.

As you noted, maximizing the use of zero-emission

technologies is a necessary component to effectively

address California's air quality and climate protection

goals. And as part of our State Implementation Plan,

Sustainable Freight Strategy, and the Scoping Plan, we

concluded that zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty

vehicles are needed everywhere feasible to meet air


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

quality standards and meet sustainability targets.

The current zero-emission truck market is mostly

served by small manufacturers and up-fitters. It's

necessary to accelerate the market to meet our goals by

bringing more manufacturers into the zero-emission vehicle

market and to instill confidence that early adopters of

zero-emission technology will be backed with long-term

market support.

Zero-emission trucks are a key strategy in the

State's efforts to reduce emissions in the transportation

sector. They provide immediate health benefits to local

communities and more energy efficiency than conventional

trucks, and significantly reduced petroleum and other

fossil fuel use.

Today's proposed manufacturer ZEV sales

requirement will significantly increase the total number

of ZEVs deployed and will provide substantially more

benefits than originally proposed and discussed with the

Board in December.

In addition, large entities and fleets would be

required to complete a one-time report that has been

streamlined focused only on their truck fleets and will

provide the information needed to establish a foundation

for future fleet rules that will complement today's

proposal.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

Ultimately, the proposed manufacturer requirement

and future fleet rules will be key components in making

substantial progress towards achieving our zero-emissions

future.

And with that, I'll ask Paul Arneja of the Mobile

Source Control Division to begin the staff presentation.

Paul.

(Thereupon an overhead presentation was

presented as follows.)

EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: Paul, you're muted, if

you're speaking.

MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF KITOWSKI:

Hi, Richard. This is Jack Kitowski. We had some

technical issues with the Internet here, so I'm going to

start on this presentation and we may transfer in the

middle of it.

Sorry about that.

EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: Okay.


So thank you, Mr. Corey and good morning, Chair

Nichols and members of the Board. Today, we will be going

over the proposed Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation. This

is the second of two Board hearings on this item.

--o0o--



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

In today's presentation, I will be summarizing

the Board's direction from our first hearing last

December, providing our assessment of the heavy-duty

manufacturer's proposal, demonstrate how staff is

responding to the Board's direction to increase

zero-emission vehicle sales and streamline the large

entity reporting requirement, and discuss the next steps

for this proposal.

--o0o--


Advanced Clean Trucks is the first in a trio of

related regulations designed to tackle heavy-duty

emissions. The Advanced Clean Trucks Rule will foster and

accelerate the zero-emission truck market by ensuring

large-scale production of zero-emission vehicles by major

vehicle manufacturers. The regulation will ensure

manufacturers are competitively producing and selling

zero-emission vehicles to fleets.

In August, staff will be presenting the Low-NOx

Omnibus to the Board, which is a holistic effort to reduce

NOx emissions of the remaining combustion-powered

heavy-duty vehicles. Manufacturers building low-NOx

engines earlier than required will receive bonus credits

to encourage early and extra action. Both hybrid and

natural gas vehicles certified early to the Omnibus


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Standard will earn credit multipliers, which manufacturers

can then use to help meet their overall omnibus

commitments.

And then lastly, staff has begun work on a

zero-emission fleets rule -- fleet rules designed to work

in conjunction with today's zero-emission vehicle adoption

in California's fleet. This rulemaking may have multiple

aspects, including zero-emission purchase requirements for

certain market segments or beachheads to other concepts,

including green contracting requirements and zero-emission

zones.

These three policies complement and synergize

with each other to generate greater emission reductions

than any one regulation could.

--o0o--


As a reminder, the proposed Advanced Clean Trucks

Regulation has two main components: One, a requirement

for medium- and heavy-duty manufacturers to sell

zero-emission vehicles as a portion of their annual sales;

and two, a requirement for businesses and other large

entities to complete a one-time reporting. This

information will be critical in developing appropriate

future fleet rules.

--o0o--


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27


Last December's Board hearing was eventful and

well attended with over 100 commenters providing their

input. After hearing public testimony, the Board provided

guidance on ways to improve the regulation. Broadly,

these include the following: increase the number of

zero-emission vehicles deployed by 2030 with a focus on

disadvantaged communities; evaluate the manufacturers

proposal, which would require 100 percent of sales to be

zero-emission in specific segments; work with industry to

identify ways to streamline the reporting requirement;

expedite zero-emission fleet rules to support the

manufacturer requirements; and, ensure the regulation puts

us in a path towards 2045 carbon neutrality.

--o0o--


And at this point, I think we've overcome our

technical glitch and Paul Arneja is going to resume the

presentation.

MSCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ARNEJA: Okay.

Thanks, Jack and Good Morning, Chair Nichols members of

the Board.

So just to continue on. First, I'll be going

over the proposal presented by the Truck and Engine

Manufacturers Association and staff's analysis of their


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

proposal. Staff thanks the heavy-duty manufacturers for

their participation in this regulatory process and we look

forward to their continued and their willingness to

embrace zero-emission technologies. We look forward to

their continued input and participation.

--o0o--

MSCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ARNEJA: The EMA

proposal will identify specific segments or beachheads and

require that all sales and purchases within those segments

be 100 percent zero-emission. These requirements would

start in 2023, and include segments such as school buses,

refuse trucks, utility trucks, and government vehicles.

This would continue for other vehicle segments in future

years.

--o0o--

MSCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ARNEJA: After

discussions with the manufacturers, staff determined that

the EMA proposal raises numerous issues that make it

inconsistent with our objectives for this rulemaking.

First, this proposal would place new requirements

on fleets that were not in staff's original proposal.

Therefore, this would require abandoning this rulemaking

and starting a new process.

Second, in conversations with EMA, they

acknowledge that every vehicle segment has potential


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

infrastructure challenges, range limitations, and other

issues that prevent 100 percent of sales being

zero-emission in the near term. The EMA proposal is not

practical for vehicles who have many applications. For

example, the same tractor is suitable for electrification

in short haul and drayage, but is not currently suitable

for electrification in long haul.

The proposal ignores suitable uses cases for the

same chassis if it is outside the specified segment,

making it difficult to increase sales beyond staff's

original proposal.

As a result of these issues, staff is not

incorporating the EMA proposal into the Advanced Clean

Trucks manufacturer requirement. Instead, staff will be

incorporation the concept of beachheads into the upcoming

Zero-Emission Fleet Rule.

--o0o--

MSCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ARNEJA: Now, I will

describe how staff is proposing to increase the number of

zero-emission vehicles sold into California. Staff has

identified multiple areas to be more aggressive which

result in substantially zero-emission vehicles deployed.

--o0o--

MSCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ARNEJA: The truck

market is a diverse group of vehicles used in all sectors


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

of California's economy. In brief, the Class 2b and 3

group consist of mainly heavy-duty pickups as well as

cargo and passenger vans.

Vehicles in the Class 4 through 8 group are

primarily sold as a chassis, then up-fitted with a body to

become a box truck, bus, dump truck, or other

configurations.

The Class 7 and 8 tractor group consists of

semi-trucks used in drayage, city delivery, regional

trucking, and long haul-applications.

--o0o--

MSCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ARNEJA: To start

off, we have proposed to increase the requirements in the

early years of the regulation in two ways. First, we move

all requirements forward a year without changing the start

date. Nearly every major manufacturer has made

commitments to launch zero-emission vehicles prior to the

regulation start date, so early compliance is anticipated.

In addition, major fleets, such as UPS, FedEx, and Amazon

have committed to purchasing thousands of zero-emission

trucks each.

Second, we have included pickups from the 2024

model year as requested by numerous commenters and Board

members during the December Board hearing.

At this point, there have been six different


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

zero-emission pickups announced to launch in the next few

years, with some projected to be in the Class 2b and 3

space. Based on this, it no longer makes sense to delay

all pickups until the 2027 model year, seven years from

now.

Because of the current situation, we want to

highlight that these targets, while aggressive, are still

feasible despite the effects of COVID-19. While the

current situation presents some uncertainty, the

regulation doesn't begin until the 2024 model year, giving

manufacturers and fleets necessary time.

In addition, this rule is projected to live --

this rule is projected to deliver lower operating costs to

trucking fleets and health benefits to Californians.

Lastly, these vehicle deployments will create

green, high-quality jobs in infrastructure and

zero-emission manufacturing to stimulate the state's

economy.

delay.

These are reasons to move ahead and not to

--o0o--

MSCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ARNEJA: Next, we

have proposed to increase the requirements of on Class 7

and 8 tractors as shown in bold. These changes align with

the port's Clean Air Action Plan and the goals of 100

percent zero-emission drayage by 2035, as well as meeting


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

the Board's direction to achieve additional benefits in

disadvantaged communities.

Tractor trailers or semi-trucks are the biggest

polluters and frequently operate in the ports and

warehouses that surround these communities. Increasing

requirements on tractors will give the most direct benefit

this -- to these historically overburdened communities.

--o0o--

MSCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ARNEJA: We have also

proposed increased requirements on the other vehicle

groups. For the Class 2b and 3 group, we propose to

increase the requirements to at least 30 percent of sales.

Zero-emission pickups are become -- are coming to market

sooner than staff anticipated. When combined with recent

announcements regarding zero-emission vans, this indicates

that higher requirements are more feasible than originally

proposed.

For the Class 4 through 8 group, instead of

ramping up the requirement steeply in the later years like

a hockey stick, we are proposing to increase the

requirements more steadily. The changes listed so far

roughly double the number of zero-emission vehicles

deployed by 2030.

--o0o--

MSCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ARNEJA: At the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

December Board hearing, one of the key messages we heard

is that our regulation needs to put us on a clear pathway

towards meeting our 2045 carbon neutrality goal. The last

step we have taken is to ensure that -- is to continue

ramping up the requirements past 2030 to 2035 in order to

give more long-term certainty.

Through these increased requirements, the

regulation achieves 15 percent of the fleet being

zero-emission by 2035. We also help ensure we meet the

2035 zero emission drayage target.

--o0o--

MSCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ARNEJA: Staff has

make other modifications to the manufacturer zero-emission

sales requirement as listed here.

In some cases, these changes were to meet

requests for manufacturers for additional flexibility, in

other cases, to streamline language and clarify intent.

--o0o--

MSCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ARNEJA: Staff's

proposal is expected to increase the number of

zero-emission vehicles deployed and result in greater NOx

and PM2.5 emission benefits as compared to last December's

proposal. The regulation is anticipated to generate

roughly seven tons of NOx reductions by 2031, becoming an

increasingly critical part of South Coast's 2031 ozone


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

attainment target, and providing significantly greater

reductions over time.

--o0o--

MSCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ARNEJA: Staff's

proposal is also anticipated to provide additional

greenhouse gas benefits compared to the December proposal.

Overall, the proposed regulation is

anticipated -- anticipated to result in roughly 18 million

metric tons of greenhouse gas reductions, only including

benefits above and beyond the Phase Two Greenhouse Gas

Program already adopted by the Board.

--o0o--

MSCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ARNEJA: In addition

to emission benefits, the proposed Advanced Clean Trucks

Regulation is anticipated to bring a suite of other

benefits to California. This includes nearly $6 billion

in economic savings. While zero-emission vehicles are

expected to higher upfront costs for the vehicles and

supporting infrastructure, savings from lower fuel costs,

decreased maintenance expenses, and LCFS revenue will

result in a net savings for fleets.

On top of the economic benefits, the regulation

is anticipated to provide almost $9 billion in health

savings for Californians. This comes from avoided

premature mortality, avoided emergency room visits, and


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

other avoided health impacts.

The regulation is anticipated to bring green,

high-quality jobs to California. This will come from

zero-emission infrastructure installation, and

zero-emission manufacturing jobs within the state.

Lastly, the regulation will bring other

co-benefits as well, including reduced petroleum

dependence and energy usage.

--o0o--

MSCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ARNEJA: Now, I'll

move on to the other component of the regulation, the

large entity reporting.

The Board and stakeholders have made clear that

adopting zero-emission fleet rules will be critical to the

success -- to the success of the overall zero-emission

market place. The one-time large entity reporting is

essential in ensuring that staff has sufficient

information to develop effective, equitable fleet rules

that maximize development -- deployment of zero-emission

vehicles where feasible.

--o0o--

MSCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ARNEJA: In response

to Board direction, staff has streamlined the reporting

while maintaining necessary information for the upcoming

fleet rule. Staff is eliminating questions for companies


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

who do not -- who do not own trucks and facilities who do

not have vehicles. Staff will work to gather this

information through a voluntary survey with a contractor

rather than through the regulation. We have increased the

number of trucking fleets who would need to report, but

are reducing the fleet size cutoff from 50 trucks to a

hundred -- from 50 trucks or more to a hundred trucks or

more.

As you have seen, the requirements under the

manufacturer requirements have become more stringent. In

response, staff will need information about smaller fleets

as more fleets overall will need to electrify.

Lastly, staff has worked with industry to

streamline and clarify the questions being asked in the

survey. This includes providing examples and allowing

fleets flexibility using the data they already have.

--o0o--

MSCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ARNEJA: The

information about fleet's vehicles and how they are used

is the most critical for future fleet rules. To meet

Board direction, staff has made numerous modifications to

provide flexibility and guidance on how fleets should

report information about their fleets.

Staff has also simplified the reporting by

providing -- by removing questions about light-duty


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

vehicles as this information is outside the scope of our

upcoming rulemaking.

In summary, staff has revised the reporting

requirement to remove a significant amount of the

reporting that created the most concern, clarified and

simplified the remaining reporting, and maintained only

those portions regarding the vehicles and how they are

used that is the most critical for developing future fleet

rules.

--o0o--

MSCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ARNEJA: A draft

environmental analysis was completed for the proposed

regulation that was released in October. Staff determined

that implementation of the proposed regulation may have

potentially significant indirect impacts to some resource

areas. However, these impacts are mainly due -- due to

short-term construction-related activities.

The Draft Environmental Analysis was released for

a 45-day comment period, which ended on December 9th,

2019. Staff prepared a final environmental analysis

that -- and written responses to all comments received on

the Draft Environmental Analysis and posted them on our

website earlier this month.

--o0o--

MSCD AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER ARNEJA: Staff


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

recommends that the Board approve Resolution 20-19, which

does the following:

First, it approves written responses to the

environmental comments. Second the resolution certifies

the Final Environmental Analysis, and makes a recomm --

required CEQA findings and Statement of Overriding

Considerations. Third, the resolution approves the

proposed regulation and directs the Executive Officer to

submit the regulation to U.S. EPA for inclusion in the

California State Implementation Plan. Next, it directs

staff to make -- to take steps to ensure a full transition

to zero-emission vehicles by 2045 where feasible. In

addition, it directs staff to pursue earlier targets in

certain beachhead sectors, including drayage, last-mile

delivery, refuse trucks, private buses, utility and

government fleets.

Last, it directs staff to identify resources and

continue working with our sister agencies to support

infrastructure and workforce development.

Thank you. This concludes my presentation. We

will now have two speakers from our sister agencies and

northeast state partners. First, we have Tyson Eckerle

with GO-Biz and second Dr. Paul Miller with NESCAUM.

On to Tyson first. Thank you.

MR. ECKERLE: All right. Thank you. Can you


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

hear me okay?

(Nodding heads.)

MR. ECKERLE: Great. Great.

Well, thank you very much Paul and Jack. That

was a great summary of the regulation. We're very excited

to be here and offer really strong support for everything

you're doing.


Presented as follows.)

MR. ECKERLE: So as we're pulling up the -- my

presentation, I'll just give an introduction. My name is

Tyson Eckerle. I'm the Deputy Director for Zero-Emission

Vehicle Market Development at the Governor's Office of

Business and Economic Development, or what we

affectionately call GO-Biz. And we are here to offer

strong support for everything that CARB is doing. This

policy is not alone and there's a lot of wrap-around

support efforts. And so I just want to show that, you

know, the State agencies are aligned.

You can go to the next slide.

--o0o--

MR. ECKERLE: The key part is, you know, we know

that complementary actions are essential to make this

regulation successful. So there's all the great work that

CARB is doing in the regulatory environment and with the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and also in the low-carbon

transportation funding. But we wanted to give a snapshot

of some of the key agencies. And this, of course, is an

incomplete list, you know, what we're working on.

So at GO-Biz, in particular, we're actively

developing what we're calling a ZEV market development

framework. And the idea there is to clearly delineate

roles and responsibilities both throughout all of our

State agencies, but also working with all the Stakeholders

and partners that are needed to make this market work and

really get to scale. And it's really about getting to

scale and making sure that we're at true zero by 2045.

A subcomponent of that is what we're

affectionately calling our big ZEV strategy. And that's

what we like to call the medium- and heavy-duty ZEVs. But

this really is, you know, kind of rolling up the shirt

sleeves, getting our hands dirty, getting deep into the

details of implementation, working closely with industry

and with stakeholders, with local governments to make sure

that we understand all the barriers and challenges that

are coming up that we can address those head on. And we

have a lot of good progress being made there.

And one of the subcomponents of that is, you

know, permitting, right? And so we've done two permit

guide books, you know, one for plug-in charging, one for


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

hydrogen fueling. And we're increasingly focusing that

effort on medium- and heavy-duty in the streamlining

effort. So there's a lot of work to do there, but we're

making some really great progress. And then finally, you

know, for business development this is a huge economic

development opportunity. So GO-Biz, at its core, you

know, we're helping companies transition into this -- into

this market.

The Energy Commission, as you know, is a

tremendous partner as well. They have their funding with

the Clean Transportation Plan. They're increasingly

aligning that funding towards medium- and heavy-duty, and

there's, you know, great partnership and synergy with CARB

and CEC on the vehicles and infrastructure side.

CEC is doing a great job also with demand

forecasting and helping us understand, you know, what

future utility investments need to be made, so that we can

be ready for this, you know, rapid scale-up.

Their AB 2127 report is underway as way. And

that's really a deep dive into charging assessment and

what we need to go there. And we're also getting a good

handle on what -- what the opportunities are with

hydrogen, which is really exciting in the medium- and

heavy-duty sector as well.

The Public Utilities Commission and the utilities


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

have a tremendously huge role to play, as far as bringing

power to these sites, you know, both for electricity and

for hydrogen. And so -- and these, you know, investments

and rate developments are well underway. Their

transportation electrification framework is aimed really

to help potentially speed things up to make it more simple

for utilities to propose projects. And so far, what's on

the table, there's enough investment to an estimated

support about 18,000 trucks and that's just at the start.

And then finally, you know, we pride ourselves on

really leading by example. So DGS, Department of General

Services, and Caltrans are committed to helping, you know,

with -- to green our fleets and bring zero-emission

vehicles not in just light-duty as we've had some good

success, but also medium- and heavy-duty.

And so, you know, it's no secret, you know, the

key mechanisms for success, you need vehicles, you need

fleets to deploy them. You know, so that's kind of at

least the regulatory framework that your -- the Advanced

Clean Trucks and also the Fleet Rule. And then there's a

lot of work to do on the infrastructure and transition

support.

We're also doing deep dive into funding and

financing, and especially as we try to get to scale

looking at how we bring in private financing to help, you


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

know, amplify this rollout. And really, you know, we know

there are challenges ahead, but they're all solvable,

especially with close partnerships.

We can go to the next slide there.

--o0o--

MR. ECKERLE: And one of the key areas there is

that, you know, focusing on infrastructure readiness.

It's really the enabler that helps the market open up.

The -- you know, the ACT Rule I think is really an unsung

hero. I think Chair Nichols put it out there well. It

really helps strengthen the business case of what's

possible, you know, as far as investing in the

infrastructure to support that. We want to make sure that

we are going deep with the experts and leveraging lessons

learned as we go through. We're hoping, you know, through

close communication and through the market development

framework, we can make sure that lessons are learned once

and then translated into other fleets. And then, you

know, with active effort, of course, to reduce permit --

permit -- it's the soft costs associated with

developing this -- this market.

If you'd go to the next slide --

--o0o--

MR. ECKERLE: -- you know, we've talked a bit

about economics and workforce. And it truly is a big


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

opportunity for California. We are -- we have head

site -- a head start in a lot of ways with our great, you

know, manufacturing, engineering, research and development

here in this state, but we do have to be intentional about

it, you know, to work to continue creating those jobs here

in California. And then especially reaching into the

traditionally underrepresented communities. I think

there's a very big opportunity to do so. And so this

regulation underscores the certainty that California

really is in that leading role.

And one thing to highlight I think is, you know,

a great compliment to CARB and the Energy Commission and

that joint solicitation on drayage, is, you know, one of

the -- it includes a focus on, you know, ZEV workforce

training and planning, which is, you know, really forward

looking. And so, you know, we -- working with all the

different labor agencies throughout the state, we are

being intentional in making sure that the benefits are

captured here, and especially in the communities that need

them most.

And then if you'd go to the last slide --

--o0o--

MR. ECKERLE: -- it's just my contact information

there. But, you know, really if you look at it, this

Advanced Clean Trucks Rule is foundational to the market.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

I think it's really the right policy at the right time.

And GO-Bis and all the State agencies are all in on

working with, you know, CARB, manufacturers, fleets, fuel

providers, utilities, local governments, air districts,

NGOs and investors to really make this market work.

So thank you for everything to the Air Resources

Board and everything you're doing to lead on this issue

and others. And with that, I can hand it over to our next

speaker from NESCAUM.

Thank you.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you, Tyson for that

terrific presentation.

CHAIR NICHOLS: And here's Paul Miller. I see

him

MR. MILLER: I am here. Waiting for my slides to

pop up.



MR. MILLER: I will introduce myself. I am Paul

Miller. I am the Executive Director of the Northeast

States for Coordinated Air Use Management, or NESCAUM,

based in Boston. And I want to thank you for the

opportunity to speak once again before the Board today, as

you make this important decision that will have

significant and far-reaching impacts for the northeast and


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

beyond.

Next slide, please.

--o0o--

MR. MILLER: As background or a reminder NESCAUM

is the regional non-profit association of eight state air

quality agencies in the northeast as shown on the map. We

provide scientific and policy support to the air quality

and climate programs of our state members. We have a long

history of working with California and other states on

adopting and implementing California's low-emissions and

zero-emissions vehicle standards.

In fact, seven of our eight member states have

adopted California's Advanced Clean Cars Program in lieu

of federal standards. And a number of our states are in

court alongside California to protect these clean car

programs from federal efforts to obstruct climate and air

quality progress.

Thus, it should come as no surprise that NESCAUM

strongly supports the proposed Advanced Cleans Trucks

Regulation and the revisions proposed by staff. In

addition to myself, four NESCAUM member states will also

be providing public comments today in support of the ACT

Regulation.

Next slide, please.

--o0o--


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

MR. MILLER: In the northeast, trans -- the

transportation sector is by far the largest contributor to

greenhouse gas emissions as shown in the circle on the

left, 42 percent. Of that amount, medium- and heavy-duty

vehicles are the second largest in the transportation

sector behind light-duty vehicles.

They're only about four percent of the vehicles

on the road in our region, but they make up almost a

quarter of total greenhouse gas emissions from this

sector, and therefore transportation electrification is a

key strategy in our region and across the world to meeting

our climate action goals and needs.

Next slide, please.

--o0o--

MR. MILLER: I want to point out that in addition

to climate needs, we also look at the ACT Regulation as an

air quality measure. And while air quality has improved

tremendously in our region since about 1990, starting

about 2010 progress in reducing smog has actually

flattened, and we actively seek new and greater

opportunities to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions to keep

precursor for ozone smog in our region.

And in 2017, as this slide shows, on-road diesel

is the second largest source of nitrogen oxide, or NOx,

emissions within the northeast corridor. And we believe


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

electrifying trucks will help address our smog problem, as

well as provide other health benefits, including in

disadvantaged communities that are disproportionately

impacted by diesel exhaust.

Next slide, please.

--o0o--

MR. MILLER: Just quickly recent events. You may

have heard there's a pandemic going on. This is satellite

slides shown for two periods of time. On the right 2020,

March to June, on the left same period of time in 2019.

This is nitrogen dioxide, which is a component of nitrogen

oxide. It's short lived, so a good indicator of

emissions. And what it clearly shows is that NOx

emissions have decreased tremendously due to the pandemic

restrictions in our region. And we are not unique. This

is also true in Los Angeles and throughout the U.S. as

well as the rest of the world. So this is a stark picture

of how much NOx reductions have re -- have occurred simply

from the COVID shutdowns.

Next slide, please.

--o0o--

MR. MILLER: Real quick, a busy slide. But of

those NOx reductions, it's pretty apparent that a large

contributor to those reductions is the decrease in vehicle

traffic. This is from a traffic counter along the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

Interstate 95 corridor actually in Maryland, but somewhat

representative of the entire region.

On the left side vertical axis is total vehicle

counts. It goes up to about 200,000. On the right side

is actually just truck vehicle counts. These are trucks

over 50 feet. So on the -- starting on the left, the

upper line at least starting out, the blue line, that's

total vehicle traffic, and as the COVID restrictions began

taking place in Maryland and elsewhere, you see a dramatic

and rapid decrease in total vehicle count to about a

hundred thousand by the time you get to the beginning of

April.

So about a 50 percent reduction in total traffic

along this interstate corridor due to COVID. However, the

other line, which starts out at the lower line, and once

again be aware this is on the right axis, so in terms of

total numbers it's less than the left axis, these are the

big trucks over 50 feet. Starting out, you can see the

big weekend/weekday difference. But as you go into the

pandemic period, you see a much less drop during this

time. Than with total traffic counts. So the heavy-duty

vehicles kept rolling for the most part in our region.

And you see, as you go to the right, traffics are

now -- traffic counts are now creeping back up, they

haven't reached pre-pandemic levels yet, but they are


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

coming back up. And I want to point your attention to the

right side of this chart, there's a vertical shaded bar

around the date of June 8th. It's actually June 9th.

And with that, I want to go to the next slide,

please.

--o0o--

MR. MILLER: On June 9th, we still had an ozone

problem. We were seeing exceedances, as shown in the

darker orange colors here of the federal ozone national

ambient air quality standard. So even essentially on this

particular day, which there's about a 25 percent, at this

time, decrease in total traffic. One might think of it as

a 25 percent zero-emission vehicle on-road fleet, we were

still seeing exceedances of the ozone standards in our

region.

And we are not unique in this regard. In fact, I

think we've been let off easy because the weather this

summer in the northeast has not been particularly

conducive so far to ozone formation. Yet, we still see it

despite the drop in traffic.

One of the unique problems we have in terms of

the science is the Long Island Sound area. That is a

stable marine layer in which only a little bit of

emissions from New York City and the entire corridor can

seep into. And that gets captured in a very low level


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

stable marine layer, and a whole lot of chemistry goes on,

and generates a whole lot of ozone in a very small volume.

And then that hits the coastal Connecticut area and they

see the worst ozone levels in our region. However,

depending on the wind, that ozone can go all over the

place.

So what this shows to me is that even though,

under the Clean Air Act, we're not -- this region, New

York City, is not classified as an extreme nonattainment

area in terms of the law, in terms of the physics, and the

chemistry, it is quite extreme. It's a big challenge for

us to deal with, because of the chemistry and physics of

the Long Island Sound. So we look for measures like

California's ACT Rule to assist us in getting the deep

reductions we need in this dense urban reach.

And I also want to point out that while it hasn't

been conducive in our region for ozone. It has been, I

think, a bit more conducive for ozone in other parts of

the country, including Los Angeles, Phoenix, Los Vegas.

As you may know, and I assume you do, during the COVID

traffic decrease in April and May, the southwest had a

pretty long heat spell, and we saw more ozone exceedances

during that period this year, April and May, than you saw

last year.

And I believe, my hypothesis is that's because


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

the weather was more conducive, even though you had

decreases in traffic emissions.

And this also demonstrates the role of climate,

and that climate and air pollution are inextricably

linked. One cannot consider one without thinking of the

other.

And in that regard, we need these measures not

just to address climate. We need these measures to

address our air quality problem, because we're juicing up

the climate that's juicing up our air pollution

generation.

And the next slide, please.

--o0o--

MR. MILLER: So, in conclusion, I want to remind

the Board that I actually appeared before you in person

back in December to announce a statement of intent, in

which California joined with a number of the northeast

states and other states across the country in a new

partnership to support the rapid development of the

medium- and heavy-duty ZEV market.

And NESCAUM continues to work with California,

our own states, and elsewhere in developing a memorandum

of understanding that will bring about a new multi-state

action plan that will layout the groundwork for achieving

our goals on medium- and heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

and layout market enabling actions that will help succeed

for all of us.

And so I look forward to California once again

participating in this coordinated effort with other

states. I think you'll be gratified that there are more

states interested in signing on now than at the time of

December. And so this is gaining great momentum that will

only take off from here, I'm sure.

So I want to thank you again for all the work

you're doing, the benefits you're brining to the

northeast, the country, the rest of the world.

And with that, I will conclude and I'm happy to

take any questions.

Thank you.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you, Paul.

I think we'll probably straight to public

testimony. But I hope you'll be able to stay with us and

respond to any questions, if we need you going forward.

Thank you very much.

Okay. I think we will now hear from the public

then who've raised their hands to speak on this item and

I'll ask the clerk to call witnesses. I want to remind

everybody that although it has usually been our practice

to allot three minutes per speaker, we have the ability to

shorten that time and rather than impose it midway


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

through, just looking at the sheer volume of people who've

asked to speak to us here, I think we should start from

the outset with a two-minute time limit. Hopefully,

everyone can compress their comments and feel free to

leave out any statements of appreciation for the staff,

and the Board, or any other nice things you might want to

say and get to the heart of your testimony, if that helps

you get your remarks into the two minutes.

So, Ryan, will you go ahead and start the

process.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Yes. Thank you, Chair

Nichols. We currently have 130 people with their hands

raised. The first four are Katie Dykes, Christine Kirby,

Peg Hanna and Steve Flint.

So, Katie, I have activated your microphone, if

you'd like to unmute yourself and begin.

MS. DYKES: Great. Well, good afternoon. I hope

you can hear me okay. My name is Katie Dikes. I'm the

Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Energy and

Environmental Protection. Thank you, Chair Nichols and

members of the Board for the opportunity to present

testimony today in support of the ACT Rule.

As you'll see from the number of states

represented, there's clearly national interest in the ACT

Rule. State leadership in decarbonizing the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

transportation sector is needed now more than ever, as the

federal government continues to pursue reckless policies

that are intent on rolling back state's rights,

environmental protections, and ignoring the public health

of our citizens, and the impacts of climate change.

CARB's effort is especially important for many

states and certainly for mine. The transportation sector

in Connecticut is responsible for approximately 70 percent

of smog-forming air pollution and 38 percent of greenhouse

gas emissions. Connecticut fails to meet the national

ambient air quality standards for ozone. And every day we

exceed these standards represents very real and tangible

adverse health impacts in my state and in the greater New

York, New Jersey, Connecticut metro area.

Given the contribution of the medium- and

heavy-duty vehicle sector to ozone precursor emissions in

Connecticut, we're obligated to review and seriously

consider adopting any measures that will reduce precursor

emissions and protect public health. And CARB's ACT Rule

holds even more importance today as many low income and

marginalized communities in Connecticut are located near

major trucking routes, ports, and other trucking hubs, and

are particularly vulnerable to the human -- the harmful

health impacts of air pollution from diesel trucks.

I was pleased to be able to sign on to the letter


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

of intent this past December on Connecticut's behalf from

our agency to pursue a similar MOU for the medium- and

heavy-duty vehicle sector that we have pursued for

light-duty vehicles, and it has been such a success.

And Governor Lamont has endorsed Connecticut's

participation in this type of an MOU, a primary goal of

which would be pursuing the eradication of toxic diesel

emissions by 2050. So we're pleased to speak in support

of the ACT Rule as an important first step and appreciate

your leadership.

And thanks for the opportunity to speak today.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Thank you. Our next

speaker is Christine Kirby. Christine, I have activated

your microphone, if you'd like to unmute yourself and

begin.

MS. KIRBY: Okay. Can you hear me?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: We can.

MS. KIRBY: Okay. Thank you. Good morning,

Chair Nichols and members of the Board, and greetings from

Massachusetts. I am Christine Kirby, an Assistant

Commissioner from the Massachusetts Department of

Environmental Protection. I appreciate the opportunity to

testify before you today in support of the Advanced Clean

Trucks Rule and our shared and continued efforts to

electrify the transportation sector.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

To put the importance of transportation

electrification in perspective, in January, the

Baker/Polito Administration released a draft formal

determination letter establishing a net zero greenhouse

gas emission limit as the new legal limit for 2050 in

Massachusetts. And then on Earth Day Energy and

Environment Secretary Kathleen Theoharides issued a final

determination that the limit in 2050 would be net zero.

Planning is fully underway through the roadmap to 2050 and

also to set the greenhouse gas emissions limit for 2030.

The zero-emission vehicle requirements in the

California regulations, which Massachusetts first adopted

in the early nineties has served as the underpinning of

our numerous electric vehicle programs. And now, we're

ready to make more progress on the medium- and heavy-duty

sector. We are prioritizing expenditure of VW settlement

funds on electrification projects, and this will continue

to be a priority in Massachusetts as we focus on COVID-19

recovery and the need to reduce pollution in areas of the

Commonwealth historically overburdened particularly in

communities of color.

In addition to advancing electric vehicle

charging stations, VW's spending in Massachusetts has been

prioritized for projects that electrify medium- and

heavy-duty vehicles and equipment, and we are giving prior


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

to projects in environmental justice areas.

Some examples are electric transit buses, plug-in

waste collection trucks, electric school buses, electric

shuttle buses, and airport electrification projects. So

this funding has provided an initial resource. We all

know that we need additional resources to make sustained

progress. A key initiative in the northeast and

mid-Atlantic states is the Transportation Climate

Initiative, TCI. This is a multi-jurisdiction process --

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Sorry, Christine, your

time is up.

MS. KIRBY: Okay. So I will wrap it up. So for

TCI, we are continuing to make progress and this will give

us more resources to continue to invest in the sector. In

closing, we are fully in support of the ACT Rule and we

look forward to our continued collaboration to meet our

joint climate goals, air quality goals, and providing more

low carbon transportation options.

So thank you for the opportunity to testify

before you today.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Thank you.

Our next speaker is Peg Hanna. I have unmuted


begin.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

59

MS. HANNA: Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair

and members of the Board. Thank you for allowing me to

provide New Jersey's perspective and express New Jersey's

wholehearted support for the rule that we're discussing

today. New Jersey absolutely recognizes the climate

crisis. In fact, earlier this year, we released a

comprehensive energy master plan, which ambitiously aims

to achieve 100 percent clean energy production and 100

hundred percent clean transportation by 2050.

That plan assumes a steep trajectory of

electrification of the medium- and heavy-duty sector. We

are starting at ground zero in New Jersey. Achieving the

energy master plan goals will require all the tools in our

toolbox and then some.

Once again, CARB's intensive research and data

gathering on a multitude of technology forcing

transportation programs, including the one we're

discussing today, are paving the way for states, such as

New Jersey, to be zero carbon.

CARB's proposed rule will drive industry and the

market creating a glide path and electrification roadmap

for the northeastern states. New Jersey has already made

investments in the medium- and heavy-duty space. To date,

we have disbursed $24 million from the Volkswagen

settlement for electric school buses, transit buses,


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

60

garbage trucks, port and airport equipment. Thirty-seven

million more will be disbursed soon with priority given to

EJ communities.

Under our recently finalized RGGI strategic

funding plan, $60 million per year for the next three

years will be dedicated to achieving medium- and

heavy-duty electrification, again with priority given to

overburdened communities.

Work is also underway with our Economic

Development Authority, or Board of Public Utilities, and

other organizations to analyze the New Jersey specific

market segments, predict readiness to electrify, and

develop emission profiles from the different market

segment, so that we can prioritize our strategies moving

forward.

This data will enable us to leverage the $60

million in annual funding to achieve the greatest benefits

in terms of market development, job creation, and air

quality improvements. Progress will not come without

collaboration --

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Apologies. Your time is

up.

MS. HANNA: Okay. Thank you.


Our next speaker is Steve Flint. And after Steve


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

61

will be Bill Van Amburg, Nate Baguio, and Dave -- Dawn

Fenton. I apologize in advance if I mispronounced

anyone's name. So, Steven, I will unmute your microphone,

if you'd like to begin your testimony.

MR. FLINT: Thank you. I'm Steve Flint. I'm the

Director of the Division of air Resources In New York

State's Department of Environmental Conservation. I want

to thank the Board for this opportunity to testify on

behalf of New York regarding the Advanced Clean Trucks

program reg.

New York and CARB have a long established

relationship working on mobile source emissions. I look

forward to continuing in this relationship moving forward

on medium- and heavy-duty electrification.

California's leadership in mobile sources is

critical to New York and many other states. Section 177

of the Clean Air Act specifically permits states to adopt

California's motor vehicle emission standards. New York

has a long history of adopting these standards. This is a

right that we embrace and fully expect to continue to

exercise.

We believe the technology-forcing elements of the

Advanced Clean Trucks Program Reg are crucial to the

long-term success of motor vehicle emissions reductions.

We urge the Board to continue this course by implementing


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

62

the program.

New York has supported the development of medium-

and heavy-duty ZEV trucks and buses by providing

incentives through the Volkswagen settlement in New York

and statewide. Governor Cuomo has also committed to fully

electrify five of the state's largest municipal transit

systems by 2035. And the New York City Metropolitan

Transit Authority has committed to buy only electric buses

by 2029.

New York's Climate Leadership and Community

Protection Act requires reductions of 40 percent by --

from 1990 levels by 2030, and 85 percent by 2050. To

reach these goals, we must reduce emissions from all

sectors, including the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle

sector.

In our view, California's proposed regulations

provide the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle industry with

the flexibility necessary to bring compliant vehicles to

market. This will be accomplished through phase-ins,

credit banking and trading, and existing and emergency

emission control strategies expected to be widely

available within the next day -- decade.

In closing, I reiterate New York's support for

the Advanced Clean Trucks Program Regulation.

Thank you.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

63


speaker is Bill Van Amburg. Bill, I have activated your

microphone, if you'd like to unmute yourself and begin.

MR. VAN AMBURG: Great. Thank you. Can you hear

my, Ryan, okay?


MR. VAN AMBURG: Thank you much.

Chair Nichols, members of the Board, attendees,

I'm Bill Van Amburg, Executive Vice President at CALSTART,

and the leader of all of our truck and off-road work.

Thank you for this opportunity.

At the start it's important to acknowledge that

among our 250 member companies, there are some divergent

opinions on this subject. However, we believe we must

push ourselves to achieve the State's goals and accelerate

industry growth.

So let me outline our core comments. First,

CALSTART supports the ACT Rule and we do believe that the

state's revised percentages, while aggressive, are

achievable. Second, with the right focus on those fleet

segments ready to move faster, we believe they can be

exceeded. We performed an internal analysis using a more

segmented approach, based on the beachhead, or first

success vehicle segments from the CARB through your

investment plan. We've concluded that higher overall


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

64

percentages could be achieved, if these beachhead

application segments were really focused on.

As a result, we strongly support well created and

focused fleet rules. They are a critical component to

ensure the success of ACT, and we urge CARB to develop

these rules with all speed possible, based on these most

promising beachhead segments.

Third, we also recognize the need to secure

incentive funding to support successful implementation of

the rule. While we know this is out of CARB's control and

should not be deter setting the rule, we believe it is

very important that CARB's Board send a policy signal of

supporting incentives, and regulations, and infrastructure

investment together, as a way to build a ramp to the rule

and help maintain the pace of transformation.

We pledge to work hard with CARB, industry, the

Governor, and the Legislature to make sure these resources

are focused on achieving this clean air, climate, and

social equity outcome, and building good jobs, and are

growing our economy.

Lastly, our global commercial vehicle Drive to

Zero Program stakeholders are signaling worldwide interest

in the ACT Rule to be a model for other nations,

provinces, and states. We pledge to work with you and our

global partners towards making this alignment come true.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

65

Thank you for this opportunity to share our

support.


speaker is Nate Baguio. Sorry, if I mispronounced your

name. Nate, I have activated your microphone. If you'd

like to unmute yourself and begin.

MR. BAGUIO: Thank you -- thank you, Ryan.

Can you hear me?


MR. BAGUIO: Okay. Good morning, Chair Nichols

and Board members. My name is Nate Baguio. I'm with the

Lion Electric Company. Thank you for the opportunity to

provide comments on the proposed Advanced Clean Truck

Regulation this morning.

Lion is a leading manufacturer of zero-emission,

battery electric school buses, trucks, and shuttle buses.

We have more than 300 zero-emission vehicles on the road

currently across America and have been successfully

operating daily for the last three years. We are deeply

invested in California.

We have facilities in Sacramento and Los Angeles.

We've made a decision to bring R&D to California and we're

exploring opportunities to manufacture here in California

as well.

Lion Strongly supports CARB's recent changes to


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

66

strengthen the proposed ACT Rule and supports adoption of

the proposal before the Board. The regulation will

accelerate the deployment of zero-emission trucks to help

eliminate harmful mobile pollutants throughout California

and help grow jobs and economic development in this state.

We would like to thank CARB for its work on

accelerating the deployment of zero-emission vehicles and

sustainable transportation.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is Dawn Fenton. And after Dawn

will be Chris Peeples, Brian Kenny and Derrick Robinson.

So Dawn, I have activated your microphone, if you'd like

to unmute yourself and begin.

MS. FENTON: Yes. My name is Dawn Fenton, and I

am the Vice President of Government Relations and Public

Affairs for Volvo Group North America. The Volvo Group

supports the goals of CARB's Advanced Clean Truck

Regulation. We are confident in our ability to

manufacturer sufficient numbers of ZEV trucks, but we

doubt the market's readiness to absorb the volumes

proposed in this regulation.

On June 18th, Volvo Trucks issued a press release

on behalf of the Volvo LIGHTS Project partners, announcing

the first truck deployment and completion of the first


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

67

charging infrastructure location. Although the initial

five Volvo VNR electric pilot trucks arrived in California

several months ago, our fleet partners have had to delay

deployment of the trucks into service due to multiple

charging infrastructure delays.

Since the Board's last consideration of the ACT

Regulation on December 12th, many of us have faced

devastating health and economic ramifications from the

COVID-19 pandemic. Globally, the Volvo Group halted

production for weeks, furloughed and laid off thousands of

employees, and significantly cut product development

budgets.

Likewise, the State of California has shifted

from having an expec -- an expected $26 billion budget

surplus to an estimated $54 billion deficit. Quarterly

carbon auction revenue has plummeted, which will likely

preclude sufficient HVIP funding to support early year ZEV

truck sales.

As a result, Volvo Group North America believes a

provision should be incorporated into the regulation to

ensure truck manufacturers are not deemed noncompliant for

not reaching vehicle sales totals beyond those which can

be achieved with the limited, disconnected public funding

for vehicles and infrastructure, as well as the long lead

times for the charging infrastructure installation.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

68

The Volvo LIGHTS Project has provided valuable

insight into how to build realistic project timelines and

cost estimates for charging infrastructure, and we ask

CARB and other State agencies to incorporate lessons from

all of its ZANZEFF funded projects into the regulation.

CARB has successfully steered California's Clean

Air --

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: I'm sorry, Dawn, your time

is up.

MS. FENTON: -- agen -- last sentence -- agenda

for many decades and must continue to pave the way for an

ACT Rule that delivers real-world success, rather than

unrealistic aspirations in order to avoid inadvertent

detrimental impacts on California's environment and

economy, as well as the broader heavy-duty vehicle market.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is Chris Peeples. Chris, have

unmute -- I have activated your microphone, if you'd like

to unmute yourself and begin.

MR. PEEPLES: Thank you. Chair Nichols, members

of the Board, My name is Chris Peeples. I am an elected

at-large member of the Board of Directors of the Alameda

Contra Costa Transit District. And I encourage you to

pass this rule and to stay the course.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

69

If you look at what you did in the transit bus

market, when we started our ZEV Program almost 20 years

ago, we had to go to Europe in order to buy a fuel cell

bus. What we proved, and SunLine Transit down in Southern

California proved, is that fuel cell buses work. And the

same thing was done with battery buses with San Joaquin

transit and Foothill Transit.

Your pressure to make sure that there was enough

of a market has put in the fact that now you can buy fuel

cell buses from two American manufacturers. You can buy

battery electric buses from a number of American

manufacturers. And what it proves is your pressure and

your attempts to advance the market make sure that the

market advances.

In 2009, I had to come before you and ask for an

extension, which you granted. But it is now fully

successful, and it's time to move that success into the

truck market.

So best of luck and pass the rule.


Our next speaker is Ryan Kenny. Ryan, I've

unmuted activated your microphone, if you'd like to unmute

yourself and begin your testimony.

MR. KENNY: Great. Good morning, Madam Chair and

members of the Board. My name is Ryan Kenny with Clean


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

70

Energy. We are coming to you today to request an addition

to the definition of near zero-emission vehicle to include

the currently certified low NOx 0.02 gram engine and the

corresponding change to the NZEV credit provisions, such

that near-term air quality benefits are incentivized in

this specific rulemaking.

There are too many uncertainties surrounding the

rule's implementation, such as cost, commercialization,

market acceptance, infrastructure to not include low-NOx

trucks in the near zero definition. Adding low-NOx trucks

will further reduce near-term emissions up until the

Omnibus Rule requires such advance -- advanced

technologies in the year 2027.

It should be made clear that the Omnibus Rule

does nothing to deploy the most stringent low-NOx trucks

prior to 2027. And that assumes staff adopts a 0.02 gram

NOx standard by that time.

We need to incentivize low-NOx trucks now and

send a strong market signal to customers that they will be

supported. This is vital to prevent fleet operators from

defaulting to dirtier diesel models impacting our chances

to achieve clean air.

Specifically, by including the most stringent

low-NOx trucks under the rule's near zero definition, such

actions will support a replacement of port and goods


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

71

movement pre-2010 model truck years, when they are

required to leave the market in 2023 per the Truck and Bus

Rule.

CARB is charged with improving the air quality

and protecting public health. And yet, the exclusion of

low-NOx trucks will place more dirty diesel trucks on the

road well beyond 2027. We ask the Board, without this

change, how does this regulation achieve near-term air

quality and immediate public health benefits.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is Derrick Robinson. And after

Derrick, we have Bill Magavern, Jed Mandel, and a phone

number ending in 528. So Derrick, I have activated your


MR. ROBINSON: Thank you to Chair Nichols, Board

Members, and CARB for your leadership in developing this

strong Advanced Clean Truck Rule.

We in San Diego and at the Center on Policy

Initiatives support the rule before the Board today. It's

good for the environment, it's good for workers, and it's

good for communities. We need the strongest possible

fleet rule though to reach our climate goals and to

protect the health of poor communities and communities of

color in this state and in San Diego.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

72

The Board needs comprehensive data on contracting

to successfully development and implement a fleet rule.

That's why the reporting requirement you're voting on

today is so important. Independent contractors have a

very hard time purchasing and maintaining clean trucks.

Contractors make up a significant portion of the trucks

out of compliance with clean air regulations in

California, with 40 percent as of last year with the Truck

and Bus Rule.

Contractors make very little income and face high

financing costs, and are highly exploited by their

employers. Contractor exploitation drives up toxic air

pollution and cancer rates, especially in low-income

communities of color. From our leadership -- or from our

discussions with you, we know the Board staff and

leadership are taking this seriously, but we need you to

stay focused on contractors. That's why we hope you'll

make an intention with today's Board resolution to address

the problem of truck driver misclassification in the Fleet

Rule. Remember, this is important to labor, environmental

justice, and environmental advocates, as well as economic

justice and racial justice advocates as well. We are all

united on this.

Thank you for your time.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

73

speaker is Bill Magavern. Bill, I've activated your


MR. MAGAVERN: Yes. Good morning. This is Bill

Magavern with the Coalition for Clean Air in strong

support of the rule before you this morning, which we

think is hugely significant for California and we hope a

model for the rest of the country.

This rule will avoid 58,000 tons of NOx through

2040, and bring in almost $9 billion in health benefits,

and avoid 943 premature deaths. In addition, the cost

savings are estimated to be between six and 12 billion

dollars through 2040, depending on what assumptions you

use. So California really cannot afford to leave all

these savings on the table.

We know that smart standards will drive

innovation in the heavy-duty sector, as they have in the

light-duty vector. We particularly appreciate the

attention given in the rule to port trucks, because we've

seen that the major ports have really not done much to

aggressively bring in the cleaner trucks that we need in

our port communities, which are overwhelmingly


I agree with the comments just made by Derrick

Robinson about the importance of having strong labor

standards to prevent the exploitation of independent


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

74

contractors in the truck driving sector. And since the

work is never done, I just want to point out that to

reduce emissions in trucking, we need to continue the

progress with the Zero-Emission Fleet Rules, with the low

NOx Omnibus Rulemaking, with getting to full

electrification on transport refrigeration units, and the

implementation of the Inspection and Maintenance Rule

mandated by last year's Senate Bill 210.

Thank you very much for the work that you're

doing today.


Our next speaker is Jed Mandel. Jed, I've

activated your microphone, if you would like to unmute

yourself and begin.

MR. MANDEL: Can you hear me all right now?


MR. MANDEL: Thank you.

This is -- I'm Jed Mandel, President of EMA. In

December, I testified that EMA members fully supported

developing a ZEV market in California. And that the

ZEV -- the staff's proposal was fundamentally flawed, and

that it only mandated the sales of ZEVs with no

requirement that anyone buy them without assuring the

necessary charging infrastructure or that the incentives

be in place.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

75

I also testified that there was a better

alternative, a targeted approach geared towards developing

beachheads

Today's proposal doubles down on the flawed naked

sales mandate approach. We urge the Board to adopt one of

two additional approaches that will help to assure the

successful development of a ZEV marketplace for commercial

vehicles.

Option 1, direct the staff to cutoff the first

two years of the sales mandate and begin it in 2026 with

the 2026 and beyond percentages. That will allow staff to

develop and implement the promised Fleet Rule, time to

develop the necessary charging infrastructure, time for

the State to recover from the current budget crisis, and

allocate funds for the needed incentives, and allow time

for manufacturers to recover from the COVID crisis, the

recession, and allow the continued investment in their ZEV

products.

Option 2 is simply to direct the staff to do what

they've promised, which is to fully link the ZEV sales

mandate with the ZEV purchase requirements. Without one

of the above solutions, commercial vehicle customers are

simply not going to buy ZEVs as expected, because they

cost more than traditionally fueled trucks, because

there's no charging infrastructure and developing one is


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

76

very expensive, and there is inadequate incentive funding

available.

All of those factors are exacerbated by the

pandemic, the recession, the State's budget, and the

double simultaneous whammy imposed on manufacturers by the

upcoming Omnibus Low-NOx Rule.

We urge you to start the rule in 2026 or link the

sales mandate to a purchase requirement.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is a phone number ending in 528.

And after that, we have Ashley Remillard, Lucia Marquez,

and Timothy Blubaugh.

So phone number ending in 528, I've activated

your microphone. Please state your name for the record.

MS. ROSENBERGER: My name is Laura Rosenberger

from Fresnans Against Fracking. Zero-emission trucks are

important. Truck emissions kill thousands of people every

year. I've expect there will be more oil trucks due to

the new fracking. There will be thousands of trucks

carrying fracking waste and mud to dumps through

disadvantaged Kern County, plus some radioactive PM2.5 my

blow off and escape from them, adding to the health

impacts.

And I did not see any waiting near the electric


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

77

vehicle chargers in North Fresno. There was always an

empty parking stall. So please support the Advanced Clean

Trucks Rule. And also about the buses, I measured that

natural gas buses have VOC emissions upon acceleration.

All right. Thank you.


Our next speaker is Ashley Remillard.

Ashley, I have activated your microphone.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Ryan, excuse me. May I just

interject for a moment here before you start the clock?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Sure, Chair Nichols.

CHAIR NICHOLS: We have a large and I think still

growing list of people who want to speak, and I am

concerned. I don't want to shorten people's time, but

what I would like to do is to ask for everyone who intends

to speak or thinks they're going to speak, might speak to

raise their hands now, so we can let people see who all is

signed up. And, of course, there may be some people who

will drop out. That does happen over the course of a long

hearing like this. But I think we need to be fair to

everybody to ask that we cut short the list in about five

minutes or so and just put a bottom on it, so that anyone

who doesn't sign up before a quarter of 11:00 will be --

will be closed off. We'll just close off. We'll listen

to everybody, of course, but we'd like to shut off the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

78

sign-ups and ask everybody to raise their hand now, if

they intend to speak.

If you've already done that, you don't have to do

anything more. But if you're just hanging out and

thinking about it, but, you know, may jump in later,

please -- please do it now. Thank you.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Thank you. If that's the

case, I will ask everyone who is currently -- who has

their hands currently raised, please do not lower and then

re-raise your hands, because then you will not be counted.

So please keep your hands up if you wish to speak on this

item.

So our speaker is Ashley. I think Ashley you are

unmuted, so go ahead and begin.

MS. REMILLARD: Wonderful. Can you hear me?


MS. REMILLARD: Thank you. Good morning. My

name is Ashley Remillard, and I'm Vice President of Legal

at Agility Fuel Solutions. On behalf of Agility and other

stakeholders, we are requesting an addition to the

definition of near zero-emission vehicles, or NZEV, to

include the currently certified low-NOx 0.02 gram engine

and corresponding changes to the NZEV credit provisions,

such that near term air quality benefits are incentivized

in this rulemaking.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

79

By way of background, agility is the leading

global provider of highly engineered and cost effective

clean fuel solutions for medium- and heavy-duty commercial

vehicles.

While Agility's core business is natural gas, we

have a robust electric vehicle program. Accordingly,

Agility is uniquely situated to comment on the need to

include low-NOx trucks that meet a 0.02 gram standard

within the ACT Rule's definition of near zero.

While we are encouraged by the progress electric

and fuel cell vehicles are making in the medium- and

heavy-duty sectors, there is a real possibility that the

State's projections fall short. This risk should not be

borne by the disadvantaged communities that continue to

live with dirty air. Rather, it is incumbent on CARB to

offer an alternative namely including 0.02 gram low-NOx

trucks within the definition of near zero, so that they

too are poised to receive the credits that CARB proposes

under the ACT Rule.

Further, these engines could utilize RNG yielding

a carbon negative lifecycle emissions result. To put it

simply, CARB must include low-NOx engines that meet 0.02

NOx values within the definition of near zero to help

clean up California's trucking fleet in the near- to

mid-term. Without this change, how does this regulation


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

80

achieve near-term air quality and immediately -- and

immediate public health benefits.

Thank you.


speaker is Lucia Marquez. Lucia, I activated your

microphone if you'd like to unmute yourself and begin.

MS. MARQUEZ: Good morning. My name is Lucia

Marquez, a policy advocate with CAUSE, the Central Coast

Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy.

We have worked alongside working-class immigrant

and community members in South Oxnard to fight against

environmental injustices in Ventura County. For decades,

South Oxnard residents have been separated from the coast

by heavy industry, including Ventura County's largest

power plant, and EPA Superfund sites, storage and

processing facilities for freight corridors for the Port

of Hueneme.

South Oxnard residents are now speaking out

against the proposed expansion plans for the Port of

Hueneme due to it being one of the county's largest

sources of air pollution from the cargo ships, cranes,

freight rail, and most importantly diesel trucks that move

goods from the harbor through the city.

Our community has been polluted for far too long.

CalEnviroScreen shows that South Oxnard is already in the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

81

87th percentile for diesel emissions. And with the Port

of Hueneme planning to expand its vehicle imports in the

coming years, we can only expect deadly emissions from

diesel trucks to dramatically increase.

We need to be working to improve the air quality

for the health of our community and taking urgent climate

action by moving towards a zero-emission future. For

decades, profit and relaxed regulations for polluting

industry have been chosen over the health of our

community.

Help us clean our air by voting yes on electric

trucks, but also to protect the health of black and brown

families who disproportionately suffer the most from truck

pollution.

I also want to highlight the importance of the

reporting requirement within the rule. Independent

contractors make up the large -- a large percentage of

trucks on the road, who make very little income and face

high financing costs and are highly exploited by their

employers. We need comprehensive data on contracting to

better support implementation of the rule. Addressing the

problem off misclassification of truck drivers needs to be

an essential part of this rule.

Thank you for your leadership in developing this

life saving regulation.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

82

Thank you.


Our next speaker is Tim Sasseen. And following

Tim is Cynthia Pinto-Cabrerra, and Ray Pingle. Tim, I

have activated your microphone, if you'd like to unmute

yourself and begin.

Tim, are you there?

We will skip Tim. The next speaker is Cynthia

Pinto-Cabrerra --

MR. SASSEEN: Hello. Hello. Hello.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Oh, hi. Okay. Yep, it is

your turn to speak, so please begin when you are ready.

MR. SASSEEN: Wonderful. Chair Nichols, Vice

Berg, members of the Board, thank you for this opportunity

to speak. I am Tim Sasseen with Ballad Power Systems, and

I have a personal story to share with you.

When I was 12, my dad was a truck driver, an

independent owner/operator. I clearly recall pouring over

the giant trucker's atlas in the passenger seat of his big

white cab-over rig, scanning the road ahead for low

clearances and weigh stations, and staring out at the vast

highways of the eastern U.S. as we cruised ten feet above

the roadway.

To this day, the smell of diesel exhaust brings

back fond memories of the open road and really everything


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

83

about trucking. Diesel perfumed the whole experience.

The exhaust would soak into your clothes and cloud every

truck stop.

Even more potent was the acrid reek of the fuel

itself, which could last for days if it splashed out on

you, which it always seemed to do when we filled up the

giant bathtub-sized tanks on either side of dad's big rig.

Diesel fuel and its exhausted remains have been simply

inescapable in trucking, and truckers, perhaps more than

most, have been paying the price. Respiratory illness and

lung cancer are highly prevalent among truck drivers and

their danger rises with every year of service for these

workers.

And it's more than the polluted air they're

constantly surrounded by. Sitting on a rumbling engine

all day and shifting up and down 13 gears can give the

feeling of exhaustion at the end of a run, even though the

body and heart have not had the exercise they need.

Health is a critical among truckers. A recent

CDC study found seven in ten truckers suffer from obesity,

compounding medical issues from exhaust exposure. And

medical issues for truckers affect us all. The University

of Minnesota showed that severely obese truck drivers were

more likely to crash in their first two years on the job.

In the unprecedented global crisis we find


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

84

ourselves in today, we have looked to truckers as our

heroes to bring us the goods we need to survive. Heroes

deserve better than this.

Electric drivetrains powered by hydrogen fuel

cells and batteries are glorious to drive, utterly silent,

completely odorless, vibration free, and practical

effortless to bring from standstill to highway speeds.

Zero-emission trucks are about so much more than averting

climate change, ending cancer corridors, and eliminating

smog, they're about bringing safety and integrity to a

profession that we all depend on and that is an integral

part of American culture.

I urge you today to approve the Advanced Clean

Truck Regulation and continue the bold and critical work

that CARB is doing and we are all so appreciative of.

Thank you.


speaker is Cynthia Pinto-Cabrerra. Cynthia I have

activated your microphone, if you'd like to unmute

yourself and begin.

MS. PINTO-CABRERRA: Thank you. Good morning,

Chair Nichols and members of the Board. Thank you for

this opportunity to comment on this item. I'm Cynthia

Pinto-Cabrerra, the Policy Assistant with the Central

Valley Air Quality Coalition, or CVAQ. CVAQ is


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

85

collaborative of more than 70 environmental justice,

public health, civic engagement, and community-based

organizations advocating for clean air in the San Joaquin

Valley.

And I'm here today to -- in support of the

proposed ACT Rule as it stands. As you may know, the San

Joaquin Valley is one of the most San Joaquin Valley is

one of the most air polluted basins in the nation. And

exposure to particle pollution from trucks contributes to

extremely unhealthy levels of air pollution and results in

numerous health burdens for the people of the San Joaquin

Valley, especially those who are residents of

disproportionately impacted environmental justice

communities, and who lie in close proximity to

distribution centers and truck routes.

Diesel -- diesel engine exhaust is in -- is a

toxic air contaminant that has the ability to emit NOx and

PM2.5, and just heavy, heavy-duty diesel trucks that count

for 63 percent of all NOx emissions and 21 percent of

PM2.5 emissions for the on-road motor vehicles.

And this triple threat is just extremely

dangerous. So approving this will be an extreme benefit

to public health. And in addition to the improvements for

public health, adoption of this rule will also contribute

to meeting the federal PM2.5 standards. The trucks in the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

86

San Joaquin Valley are truly ripe for electrification with

frequent stops and charter routes that average around 65

miles. And this really, truly creates a perfect market,

and opportunity to make significant process -- progress

towards clean -- towards clean air goals.

So CARB has made various commitments to clean

air, and the people in the valley need -- really truly

need clean air now. So again, I'm here today to -- in

support of the ACT Rule.

Thank you.


It is now 10:45, so everyone who wanted to speak

on this item should now have their hand raised. We

currently have 136 people signed up to speak. So with

that, we'll move on to our next speaker.

Our next speaker is Ray Pingle. I have unmuted

your microphone, and you can begin when you're ready.

MR. PINGLE: Good morning. Dear, Chair Nichols

and Board members, my name is Ray Pingle and I am with

Sierra Club California. We are pleased to support the ACT

Rule as recently improved. We would like to sincerely

thank the Board for requesting that the rule be

strengthened and staff for coming back with a thoughtful

and effective new plan.

This rule is a big step in the right direction.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

87

It is the catalyst needed to spark the broad availability

of zero-emission trucks across all types beginning in 2024

and to accelerate plans from OEMs, which are already

introducing new ZEV vehicles.

It will inspire similar action across the country

and make a national market, further lowering the costs of

these vehicles and increasing adoption in a positive

virtuous cycle. It will make these new modern and

efficient vehicles available to truck owners and operators

who are eager to acquire them and realize lower fuel and

maintenance costs, higher reliability, happier drivers,

lower emissions, and much a healthier and environmentally

just community.

And as our economy recovers from the Coronavirus

pandemics, it will promote future investments in the new

zero-emission direction, rather than squandering

investments in older polluting technology that could

result in stranded assets.

We urge you to approve this visionary and

groundbreaking initiative.

Thank you.


Our next three speakers are Paco Arago, Susan

Dembowski, and Lauren Navarro. So Paco, I have activated

your microphone, if you'd like to begin.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

88

MR. ARAGO: All right. Hello. Can you hear me?


MR. ARAGO: All right. Good morning, Board

members. My name is Paco Arago and I am a union

electrician with the International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers, Loca 11. I'm also the founder of the

Latin American Electrical Workers Association.

I want to talk to you about clean jobs and

environmental justice. Right now, there are less than 20

heavy-duty zero-emission trucks registered in the Ports of

Los Angeles and Long Beach drayage registry. The vast

majority of the 17,966 plus trucks are still diesel

engines. The short-haul drayage trucks routes between our

ports and the nearby distribution centers go through our

communities. We breathe this air. I live in Boyle

Heights, born and raised, so we have freeways surrounding

us, and we breathe all those emissions.

These companies claim that trucks and their

emissions are solely a business issue, because clean

trucks don't fit their duty cycle. To them I say, our

community's health can't come at the expense of cheap

television, cheap sneakers, and everything else made

abroad and delivered in a box with a yellow smile.

Support -- I support this. Thank you very much.

Motion item number 3. Thank you.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

89


speaker is Susan Dembowski. Susan, I have activated your


MS. DEMBOWSKI: Good morning. My name is Susan

Dembowski. I'm with SoCal 350 Climate Action, a 7,500

plus member Los Angeles area organization focusing on

environmental issues. It's in coalition with other

Southern California 350.org groups, reaching from north

and east of Los Angeles to South Bay Los Angeles, Long

Beach, and inland to the Riverside area.

Since I moved to Pasadena, I've watched as an

increasing number of high-density residential buildings

have been constructed in town right next to the 210

Freeway. I started to notice that pattern throughout

other areas of Southern California.

I totally understand that the land near highways

tends to be cheaper, and that California urgently needs

more housing, especially in and close to urban areas.

However, I also know that studies show that living near

the heavy pollution of busy roadways increases the risk of

respiratory diseases and decreases cardiac health.

When I had previously lived in Long Beach, I'd

become familiar with how neighborhoods in West Long Beach

were adversely affected by exhaust from freight trucks and

adjacent Interstate 710 as they drove to and from the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

90

massive ports. These low-income communities of color

living in the area couldn't avoid inhaling the toxic

diesel, particulate matter emitted from the trucks'

tailpipes.

Long-term health studies have been conducted with

these West Long Beach residents, as well as with other

communities next to the trucking arteries leading to and

within the inland warehouse regions, diesel death zones.

Studies clearly document the serious harm, especially to

children that long term exposure to diesel truck exhaust

mixture of nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter

does to lung function and development.

These assaults can continue in adulthood leading

to permanently stunted lungs, heart disease, cancer, and

to shorten lives, and even more so now as Coronavirus

threatens everyone and disproportionately affects our most

marginalized communities.

I urge you not to delay. Jump start

zero-emission truck manufacturing and approve the revised

Advanced Clean Truck Rule.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is Lauren Navarro. After

Lauren, we have Joshua Regalado, Mr. Homes, and Zach --

Zach Amittay.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

91

So Lauren, I have activated your microphone, if


MS. NAVARRO: Can you hear me?


MS. NAVARRO: I just want to align myself -- my

comments first with the gentleman who spoke just moments

ago about the local impacts of air pollution. I thought

those were very moving.

In terms of EDF -- I'm Lauren Navarro with

Environmental Defense Fund, and we are here in strong

support of this rule. We think it's really brilliant.

Medium- and heavy-duty trucks are a major source

of air pollution in California, as we've heard. We know

that this pollution is concentrated near shipping

facilities, warehouses, and freight routes, which tend to

be located in disadvantaged communities. And that's

something that we need to change. If adopted, the rule

will lead to a nearly 20 percent reduction in NOx

emissions in 2040 from Class 4 to 8 vehicles and

significant reductions in NOx emissions from other

vehicles classes.

It will also significantly reduce PM2.5 and GHGs,

and notably put us on the path towards achieving the

State's goal of net zero carbon emissions by 2045,

something I know is very important to the Board.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

92

Even more than that, the ACT Rule before you

today gives you, CARB, the ability to save our economy six

to 12 billion dollars by 2040. EDF has partnered with

Energy Innovations to run their publicly vetted Energy

Policy Simulator Tool and we've released a report called

Clean Trucks Big Bucks. This is available online.

This analysis verifies CARB's findings and

further finds that with realistic assumptions about the

speed of battery costs reductions, which we think are

actually more realistic than what CARB has assumed, this

rule could result in a nearly double the $6 billion in

cost savings identified in CARB's analysis, that makes $12

billion.

So with this research, it's beyond a doubt that

Californians will be better off with this rule in place.

And it's clear now more than ever, that we need to make

advancements that reduce harmful air pollution. This

policy benefits public health, the climate, and the

economy because going electric saves money and cleans the

air.

Business as usual --

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Thank you. Your time is

up.

MS. NAVARRO: -- which costs more cannot

continue.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

93

Thank you. Please adopt this rule today.


The next speaker is Joshua Regalado. Joshua, I

have activated your microphone, if you'd like to unmute

yourself and begin.

MR. REGALADO: Good morning, members of the

Board. My name is Joshua Regalado and I live in Ontario,

California. I'm here in support of the Electric Trucks

Rule, because I care about the health of my community.

I appreciate the Board taking initiative by

creating this rule, but I know it needs to be stronger,

specifically for the heavy-duty Class 7 and 8 tractors.

We believe that we need to begin transitioning away from

diesel and gas trucks sooner than later and we urge the

Board to raise the sales requirements of the -- for the

heavy-duty trucks early and adopt the ACT.

Firstly, there are thousands of trucks that pass

behind our homes every day. We have major freeways,

railyards, and ports in our neighborhoods. According to

truck counts we have conducted in our communities that in

an hour up to 1,161 tracks pass through the 60 Freeway.

And speaking more on the 60 Freeway, my city of

Ontario near the 60 Freeway in an article literally

titled, People Living Near the 60 Freeway Breathe the

Worst in the South, and by the LA Times, readings done by


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

94

the South Coast Air Quality Management district found that

the busy traffic corridor has the highest concentrations

of lung damaging soot in the region, surpassing federal

health limits in the readings near Mira Loma in Riverside

County.

The LA Times has found that the most concerning

pollutant being released are fine particles which are, in

fact, released by diesel engines. Fine particles are

particularly dangerous as health studies link chronic

exposure to fine particle particles to a thousand

premature deaths a year in California, primarily from

heart attacks and cardiovas -- cardiovascular disease,

sorry.

And on a more personal note, my family, both --

well, my grandmother has diabetes and one has lung cancer.

In both situations, pollutants in the air does affect both

their health detrimental.

So adopting -- so in conclusion voting to

strengthen the ACT Rule will only improve our air quality.

It will also be saving thousands of lives and will be a

step towards a greener future, whereupon future

generations can breathe much easier in the Southern

California region.

Thank you for your time and hashtag electric

trucks save lives.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

95

Thank you.


speaker is Mr. Holmes. If you are there, please -- I have

activated your microphone, and you can begin now.

MS. HOLMES: Hi. This is Laurie Holmes, Senior

Director of Environmental Policy at the Motor and

Equipment Manufacturers Association, or MEMA. We

represent more than 1,000 motor vehicle suppliers and we

are the largest sector of manufacturing jobs in the U.S.

MEMA supports regulatory certainty through

realistic heavy-duty ZEV targets. While the ACT targets

are helpful to encourage the heavy-duty ZEV market, MEMA

recommends, at a minimum, CARB maintain the original sales

percentage requirements for model years 2024 through 2030,

rather than revising them upward per the revision proposed

May 2020.

The current proposed ACT targets will most likely

need future downward adjustments. And since motor vehicle

suppliers take the leading role in extensive R&D for these

heavy-duty ZEV technologies, suppliers need stable targets

for the purpose of critical long-term investment planning

cycles.

Consequently, MEMA supports more realistic

targets to provide suppliers with greater regulatory

certainty for these investments.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

96

Stringent standards and heavy-duty NOx Omnibus

rulemaking are also critical for motor vehicle suppliers'

continued and strengthened heavy-duty ZEV technology

investments.

The associated revenue from increased sales of

emissions reduction technology for that NOx Omnibus

Rulemaking serve as the underpinning for supplier R&D

investment in heavy-duty electrification powertrain

solutions.

MEMA also supports flexibility and supports

CARB's proposal to extend NZEV credit for an additional

five years, and we encourage CARB to expand the compliance

pathway to include partial credits for conventional

heavy-duty hybrids. MEMA also supports regulatory

certainty through invest -- infrastructure investments and

greater investment in ZEV infrastructure designed

specifically for heavy-duty trucks. It's critical to

provide a clear, stable regulatory environment for these

technologies.


speaker is Zack Amittay. After Zack, we have Sherrie

Merrow, Kathy Taylor, and Yesenia Ponce.

I'd like to give a friendly reminder to everyone,

if you have your hand raised, please do not lower and then

reraise your hand, it will sort you to the bottom of the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

97

list after the cutoff date -- after the cutoff time of

10:45.

So, with that, Zach, I have activated your


MR. AMITTAY: Chair Nichols, distinguished Board

members, thank you for the opportunity to provide comment.

My name is Zach Amittay, advocate with Environmental

Entrepreneurs, or E2. E2 is a national non-partisan

network of over 9,000 business founders, executives,

investors, and other private sector professionals who work

across all industries and sectors. E2's members have

collectively founded or funded more than 2,500 companies,

created more than 600,000 jobs, and collectively managed

more than a hundred billion dollars in venture and private

equity capital.

These highly accomplished business people come

together under the E2 banner to advocate for smart

policies that are good for the economy and the

environment. Netted by the shared understanding that

smart environmental standards are a bedrock for economic

prosperity.

I'm here to express E2's support of the proposed

advanced clean trucks rule. The ACT Rule is a prime

example of smart policy at the intersection of the economy

and the environment, and will drive reductions in GHG


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

98

emissions and other harmful pollutants from California's

transportation sector and it holds enormous economic

promise for our clean energy economy and our state as a

whole.

Catalyzed by California's policy leadership, our

state is already home to a burgeoning clean train -- clean

truck manufacturing sector. By setting ambitious ZEV

truck standards for the years ahead, they actually will

propel continued innovation, investment, and job growth in

this nascent sector and the larger market ecosystem.

The ACT Rule will also help secure California's

position as a leading EV manufacturer and exporter, as ZEV

demand continues to grow outside our state with EVs

already one of California's most valuable exports.

With the ACT Rule forecast to generate thousands

of new jobs, hundreds of millions in added gross State

products, and billions in cost savings for the trucking

industry, all while reducing GHGs and other harmful

pollutants, the E2 business community strongly encourages

the Board to adopt this rule as proposed. We also endorse

complementary truck decarbonization efforts by the Board,

including the pending Clean Fleets Truck -- Clean Fleets

Rule and a resolution setting specific dates for a hundred

percent zero-emission truck fleets across all market

segments.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

99

In summary, E2 thanks the Board for its

consideration and it's continued leadership on climate

action and air pollution reduction especially in the age

of COVID-19.


Our next speaker is Sherrie Merrow. Sherrie, I

have activated your microphone, you can unmute yourself

and begin.

Sherrie, are you there?

Okay. So our next speaker is Kathy Taylor.

Kathy, I have un -- activated your microphone.

You can unmute yourself and begin.

Kathy, are you there?

MS. MERROW: This is Sherrie. I'm sorry for the

delay.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: No worries. Go ahead.

MR. MERROW: Thank you. My name is Sherrie

Merrow. I am the Director of State Affairs for Natural

Gas Vehicles for America. NGV America is the national

trade association for the natural gas vehicle industry and

we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed

ACT Rule.

This rule is incomplete without an addition to

the definition of near zero-emission vehicle, or NZEV, to

include the currently certified low NOx 0.02 gram engine


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

100

and corresponding changes to the NZEV credit revisions,

such that near-term air quality benefits are incentivized

in this rulemaking.

Since tailpipe emissions in the California

transportation sector continue to increase, it is apparent

that all appropriate available measures be taken to

reverse this trend.

Near zero low-NOx engines utilizing renewable

natural gas are available today for every medium- and

Heavy-duty option and their increased deployment will

immediately reduce emissions. These vehicles are

potentially carbon neutral and even carbon negative,

depending on the RNG service, and they are most affordable

with a mature, established refueling infrastructure

already in place, meaning more vehicles on the road at

less cost.

We (inaudible) to the NZEV definition. How this

regulation achieve (inaudible) immediate public health

benefits. We (inaudible) if ever.

Other states spending less, using all appropriate

technologies available today have successfully reduced

tailpipe emissions immediately. (inaudible) new

technologies in the future.

Thank you.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Thank you. We will try


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

101

Kathy Taylor again. Kathy, I have activated your

microphone, please unmute yourself and begin.

MS. TAYLOR: My name is Kathy Taylor. And I

serve as Manager of the Air Quality Program at Washington

State Department of Ecology.

I want to commend CARB for its efforts to

accelerate adoption in zero-emission vehicles, and in

particular, for recognizing both the potential that

reducing emissions from medium- and heavy-duty vehicles

holds and the need to work with fleet owners and

manufacturers to cut these emissions.

Earlier this year, Washington State Legislature

adopted a zero-emission vehicle program joining California

and ten other states that already have similar programs in

place. Adopting the ZEV standards represents a major step

forward for my State, where transportation is by far our

largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for

a full 45 percent of my state's total emissions.

The latest science shows that we're running out

of time to make changes necessary to avoid the worst

effects of climate change. Washington's legislature

recognized that threat, and along with the ZEV Program,

they adopted a much more stringent -- much more stringent

emission targets that call for Washington to eliminate 95

percent of greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of this


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

102

century and find ways to offset the remaining emissions.

Building more efficient medium- and heavy-duty

vehicles is essential to Washington meeting its greenhouse

gas emission targets. Diesel trucks account for nearly 21

percent of transportation emissions in Washington.

Washington State is already putting its money

where its mouth is and has used tens of millions of

dollars from the Volkswagen diesel emissions settlement to

help local governments, transit agencies, and school

districts purchase electric transit buses and electric

school buses.

We have been overwhelmed by the interest in these

grant programs and by the enthusiasm that our local

partners have for pursuing zero-emission transportation

options.

And we're not alone, Seattle-based Amazon has

committed to putting a hundred thousand electric delivery

trucks on the road in coming years. And why wouldn't

they? These vehicles drive very predictable distances,

return to central bases that could easily add charging

infrastructure, and they spend much of their time in

stop-and-go traffic, where electric vehicles can maximize

their efficiency.

The State of Washington supports the steps that

you are considering today to advance electrification and


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

103

zero-emission options for medium- and heavy-duty trucks.

They represent a tremendous opportunity for California and

our nation. By adopting these standards, California will

once again lead the way in driving our country to make

meaningful changes in the transportation system.

Thank you for your leadership in this issue and

for your time today.


Our next speaker is Yesenia Ponce. And after

Yesenia, we have Yasmine Angelidis, Michael Munoz, and

Robert Graham.

So Yesenia, I have activated your microphone, and

you can begin now.

MS. PONCE: Good morning and greetings, Board

members. My name is Yesenia. I'm a CAUSE youth leader

from Oxnard and I support the ACT Rule.

The California Air Resources Board is moving

forward with its groundbreaking Electric Truck Rule

requiring manufacturers to build more electric trucks

starting in 2030. It's important to us, because during

this pandemic the ones being affected are those with

respiratory illnesses like our elderly and those with

asthma.

Our community is in the 80th percentile of diesel

emissions, which affects those with asthma. We ask that


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

104

we help protect the health of all these people instead of

attacking it more and making it worse.

This is important for me, because my little

brother was born with asthma. And in order to decrease

it, he had to take medications. And this is not just one

person, but many people in our community that are going

through the same problem, either they're born with

respiratory illnesses or later diagnosed with it.

We ask for your help to help us protect the

health of many people. Thank you for your time.


Our next speaker is Yasmine. I have activated


begin.

MS. ANGELIDIS: Hi. Thank you. Good morning,

Chair Nichols and members of the Board.

My name is Yasmine Angelidis. And today, I'm

speaking on behalf of the Los Angeles County Electric

Truck and Bus Coalition. Our Coalition is committed to

the urgent work of electrifying all medium- and heavy-duty

trucks in the L.A. region, and we support a strong

Advanced Clean Truck Regulation.

We urge you to adopt a rule that meats the clean

air, health, and community pollution goals of California

as soon as possible. Communities already battling air


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

105

pollution now face the additional vulnerability of health

impacts from COVID-19. Now, is the time to set

zero-emission standards that will save lives, not the time

to delay.

On top of these health benefits, building

California's zero-emission transportation system is also a

pathway to the state's immediate economic recovery and

revitalization from the economic downturn. By focusing on

building up California's zero-emission's transportation,

we can train and employ disadvantaged workers for

family-sustaining jobs and increase our capacity to move

to fully electric fleets.

California has already shown that it can create

new, high-quality, family-sustaining jobs in the clean

energy economy. According to a report by the Los Angeles

County Economic Development Corporation, in 2018 alone,

California created more than 275,000 direct EV industry

jobs, including 119,000 in Southern California.

And these are high-quality jobs that on average

pay $80,000 a year in Southern California, which is 20,000

more in annual wages than other industries.

Now is the time to set zero emissions rules

throughout the transportation sector starting with the

sectors that have faced no slow down or negative capital

impacts in the virus. This includes warehousing and


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

106

regional distribution, local delivery, and the food supply

chain. Immediate electrification progress in these

essential transportation sectors will support near-term

electrification of other goods movement sectors, as they

recover post-pandemic.

We appreciate CARB's commitment to protecting

public health and we ask the agency to move forward with a

strong regulation as soon as possible.

Thank you so much.


Our next speaker is Michael Munoz. Michael, I


and begin.

MR. MUNOZ: Good morning. My name is Michael

Munoz. I'm the senior researcher for the Our People Our

Ports Campaign at the Los Angeles Alliance for a New

Economy. We've been fighting to protect the rights of

misclassified port truck drivers for over a decade.

Today, we'd like to address the Air Resources Board to

encourage you to approve the Advanced Clean Truck

Regulation as written.

The proposed language not only moves the state to

zero emissions as soon as possible, but the reporting

requirements also give CARB staff a deeper understanding

of the trucking industry. The language of the proposed


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

107

rule rightly expands the scope of trucking companies,

which we -- which we'd be required to report to the ARB.

This will enable your staff to capture

information from motor carriers that misclassify their

drivers. Misclassification of truck drivers is endemic in

the port trucking industry. And as CARB knows,

misclassification unlawfully shifts truck operating costs

from motor carriers to individual drivers and has been an

impediment to reaching our emissions goals.

The reporting requirements would capture over 50

percent of all trucking companies which haul cargo into

and out of the San Pedro Bay ports. The Air Resources

Board -- excuse me. As the Air Resources Board moves to

develop the upcoming fleet -- fleet rules and incentives,

to move to clean trucks, we encourage ARB to include labor

stands in any funds they will be distributing.

Only by raising standards can we effectively

ensure that trucking companies that break the law, short

change State coffers, and stand as a roadblock to cleaner

emissions do not benefit from the millions of public

dollars meant to transform the trucking fleet to

zero-emissions trucks.

We also want to add that we support the

transition to zero-emissions as soon as possible. We

cannot wait until the economy recovers before we begin to


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

108

address the pollution that is devastating our communities.

We have to be ready to push the industry to change its

polluting waste now, not years, or decades from now.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is Robert Graham. After Robert

will be Carolina Correa, John McNamara, and John Shears.

Robert, I have activated your microphone, if


MR. GRAHAM: Thank you, Chair Nichols and Board

members, for this opportunity to speak briefly on behalf

of a newly formed coalition of over 20 electric

transportation champions with many years of experience the

strong plug-in hybrid vehicle coalition.

Please, also let me thank the CARB staff for open

and informative discussions during this period.

My own career includes EVs working EPRI, Southern

California Edison, and the Department of Energy. We are

supportive of the new staff proposal. However, we ask

that you read our letter on the 30-day changes to the ACT

Regulation on the topic of mid-range and long-range

plug-in hybrid trucks.

We also volunteer our experienced team to be

available as a technical and marketing research to CARB

staff. We are particularly supportive of the staff's


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

109

changes to the ACT based on the comments from the December

Board hearing, where only the strongest PHEV trucks with

75 miles of all-electric range per charge can be eligible

past 2030.

However, we ask that this eligibility not end in

2035 as proposed by the staff, but continue to at least

2045. Our letter provides many reasons, but one of the

reasons is that many fleets will need to have a dual fuel

PHEV in a catastrophe such as an earthquake, wildfire, or

riot. And this rule will be influential around the world.

A strong PHEV can deliver two-thirds of the 90 percent of

annual miles electric, plus use advanced biofuels for the

remainder.

In addition, a strong PHEV can provide exportable

power.

Finally, a pathway with the EVs, fuel celled EVs,

and strong PHEVs will get us to our GHG goals much faster

than a pathway without them. That is why we believe

strong PHEVs complement and don't compete with

battery-electric vehicles nor fuel cell vehicles.

Thank you for your consideration.


Our next speaker is Carolina. I have activated


begin.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

110

MS. CORREA: Hello. My name is Carolina Correa.

I'm a resident of East Los Angeles. I'm calling on behalf

of Brightline Defense, an environmental justice

organization with a community led AB 617 air quality

monitoring program in Eastern San Francisco.

I'm calling today to express my support for the

ACT Regulation on behalf of my myself and Brightline

Defense. I live between the 710 and 5 Freeway in East Los

Angeles, both of which have a constant flow of trucks

driving to the coast and down to L.A. Trucks are a major

source of nitrogen oxides and are responsible for 25

percent of the transportation sector emissions despite

only being five percent of all the vehicles on the road,

according to a U.S. EPA report from 2017.

Given that the wind in Los Angeles blows east,

all of the air pollution from those trucks affects

primarily black and brown communities. This often leads

to a high percentage of people in my community suffering

from asthma, such as my brother. In a new world

constantly threatened by COVID-19, this highly

concentrated amount of air pollution has made the black

and brown communities in California more likely to be

immunocompromised, making the pandemic even more deadly.

It is of the utmost importance for the health and safety

of environmental communities that ACT passes.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

111

Finally, this Board should help the current

trucking industry transition into a better, cleaner

economy. As we heard from the presentation today, this

rule will create jobs and a new industry in California.

And with strong local hiring and training practices, we

can also create jobs for the communities that need it the

most.



Our next speaker is John McNamara. John, I have

unmuted your microphone, you can unmute yourself and

begin.

John McNamara, are you there?

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes. Oh, sorry.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Okay. So we'll so move on

to the next speaker John Shears.

MR. McNAMARA: Can you hear me all right?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Yes, we can.

MR. McNAMARA: Okay. Great. Thank you. Good

morning, Chair Nichols and Board members. My name is John

McNamara, Vice President at CR&R. And as the operator of

the largest and most advanced organic waste anaerobic

digester in the state of California, located in the City

of Perris, Riverside County.

CR&R supports the goals of the ACT Rule to reduce


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

112

air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions, including the

use of ZEVs. CR&R also supports staff comments in

previous workshops we attended to use biomethane only in

the cases where ZEV technology is not a good fit.

And this because our AD facility produces

renewable natural gas, or RNG, from biomethane that's

derived from recycled organic waste that's otherwise

destined for landfilling, so it's diverted from

landfilling.

The RNG meets the State Rule 30, which allowed us

two years ago to connect to the gas supply line. And

we're the first private company in California to

accomplish that. We're really proud of that.

Our refuse truck fleet running on RNG currently

has a carbon intensity index of 0.34, it's basically zero

GHG as certified by CARB. And we're in the process right

now of cert -- re-certifying our RNG fuel as a -- as a

negative CI index. And that should be completed with CARB

approval later this year.

So recycling organic waste into biomethane use as

an RNG fuel is carbon neutral and even negative. It helps

CARB meet the goals of its Short-Lived Climate Pollutant

Reduction Strategy, and therefore we believe that a

strategy reducing GHG emissions by using in-state RNG fuel

in refuse collection vehicles, in our case, should be


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

113

encouraged and approved by CARB. We provided CARB with a

detailed rationale justifying such a strategy in our

previous comments at the ACT workshops and we look forward

to discussing and working with CARB staff in the future.

Thank you for the opportunity to make these

comments and for the staff's hard work on the ACT rule

development.

This concludes my comments.


Our next speaker is John Shears. And after John,

we have Kristian Corby, Kathy Hoang, and a phone number

ending in 042. So, John, I have activated your

microphone, if you'd like to begin.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Ryan, before -- before the next

speaker begins, I'd like to interject for just a moment

here. The last speaker touched my emotions, because I

visited that facility and I'm a great fan of the work that

they've done. I just want to say that I think there is

either some confusion or potentially some attempts going

on to really alter the ACT Rule. And I just -- I feel

it's important for those who are listening in to this

proceeding to understand that ACT is only one of several

rules, which we're working on right now including, in

particular, the next one up, which is a low-NOx rule for

trucks, which will provide a clear set of incentives for


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

114

the very low emissions, natural gas, and other liquid

fuels trucks that are out there.

This rule is intended to be a zero-emission rule,

and it is intended to go for the electric drive train,

which could be either batteries or fuel cells for that

matter, which would potentially use any one of these

cleaner fuels as its feedstock. But the idea that we

would sort of shift the rule and add to it a new

definition of near zero vehicles is really saying that we

should just dilute the number of EVs that we would be

calling for under this rule.

And, you know, the Board is going to have to

discuss this and take it up later. But I want to make

sure that people understand that this not -- it's not a

question of neglecting or failing to recognize the need to

clean up existing trucks or the reality that there will be

trucks out there using natural gas and other derivative

type fuels for a long time to come, but that's not what

this rule is about. This rule is intended to be a major

jump start to zero and where we -- where we all need to

go.

So I just want to put that out there for now to

make it -- make it crystal clear that it's a -- there are

other places and other times where we will be talking

about what we're -- what we're already doing. And there


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

115

are many programs out there now that provide financial

incentives as well as regulatory incentives for these

other clean fuels. But that's not -- that's not what this

rule is about. So sorry for the interrupt and we'll go on

to the next speaker.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Our next speaker is John Shears. John, you can

unmute yourself now and begin your testimony.

MR. SHEARS: I was waiting for the unmute button

to show up on my screen.

Can you hear me okay?


MR. SHEARS: All right. I've lost time on my

comments already. Thanks, Chair Nichols, for anticipating

some of my comments. This is John Shears with CEERT,

Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies.

CEERT supports and urges the Board to adopt

staff's revised April ACT manufacturers rule with -- taken

together with the forthcoming ACT fleet rule and the HD

Omnibus Low-NOx trucks rules are all critically important

to further improve air quality and reduce climate

pollution, while also providing millions of dollars in

community health and economic benefits to the state.

While representing critically important steps,

these rules collectively will likely still not be enough


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

116

to fill the shortfall in emissions reductions needed to

fully achieve SIP and climate goals. Much more will need

to be done including addressing infrastructure issues and

applying our collective thinking towards integrating

hydrogen and fuel cell/reversible electrolyzers into the

realm of grid support, VGI, and the use of excess

renewables in order to move towards 100 percent renewable

hydrogen.

Both expert analysis and past experience

indicates that lower diesel prices combined with a lack of

any significant regulatory push will mean that domestic

market growth for the advancement of zero-emission trucks

will be slower here than in Europe or Asia.

While there's been a lot of focus on the

near-term potential and advocacy by -- for battery

electric vehicles, will you please don't forget the option

of fuel cell -- fuel-cell powered vehicles, especially on

long-haul applications.

I note that natural gas trucks are more

appropriately addressed through the proposed Omnibus Low

NOx -- Omnibus Low-NOx rule just released by staff on

Tuesday. We ask the Board to please adopt the staff's

April 28th revised proposal of the ACT manufacturer's

rule.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

117


Our next speaker is Kristian Corby. I have

activated your microphone, you can unmute yourself and

begin.

Kristian, are you there?

Okay. We'll move on to Kathy Hoang. Kathy, I


and begin.

MS. HOANG: Good morning.

MR. CORBY: Oh, wait. Sorry. Sorry. Hold on.

Can you hear me?


MR. CORBY: Sorry. This is Kristian.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Oh, okay.

MR. CORBY: Sorry, I had the unmute button

blocked. Excuse me.

Good afternoon, Chair Nichols and members of the

Board. My name is Kristian Corby. And I am the Deputy

Executive Director of the California Electric

Transportation Coalition, commonly known as CalETC.

CalETC strongly supports the goals of the ACT

Regulation, which is the rapid transition of the state's

medium- and heavy-duty trucks to zero-emission

technologies. However, CARB staff's proposed amendments

presented some real challenges for CalETC. We continue to


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

118

believe a beachhead approach is more likely to achieve

these goals, given the segmented nature of the OEMs, the

fleets, and the truck market. To be clear, however, some

of CalETC's Board members do support the proposed

amendment as do some of our members. Some of our members

do not support the amendments.

But even with these differences, everyone at

CalETC wants the ACT Rule to succeed and we agree that a

key piece to the success is the development and adoption

of a fleet rule. We strongly recommend that the

resolution language for the ACT Rule include a direct tie

to the Fleet Rule. And we further recommend that the

language explicitly state that the ACT Rule will go into

effect no less than two years after the Fleet Rule is

adopted. This language will guarantee that the Fleet Rule

will be in place and provide necessary support for the ACT

Rule.

We also recommend that the resolution language

include a date certain next year for when CARB staff can

present an update on the development of the fleet rule,

the progress of the ACT Rule, and any amendments

necessary.

We again ask for your support in creating an

effective public-private partnership to address the

infrastructure challenges. Public incentives for both


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

119

vehicles and infrastructure will be essential.

Additionally, CalETC recommends that the CARB

Board include an optional compliance pathway for Section

177 states by adding a mechanism such as a credit pooling

provision for the ACT Rule that will allow OEMs to pull

credits within the east and west regions. We greatly

appreciate --

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Thank you. Your --

MR. CORBY: -- your time and consideration of our

comments. Thank you very much.


Kathy, you can unmute yourself and begin.

MS. HOANG: Okay. Thank you. Good morning,

Madam Chair, Board members, and staff. My name is Kathy

Hoang with the Partnership for Working Families. We're a

network of 20 organizations nationwide with seven regions

in California representing two-thirds of the State.

We want to thank you for your leadership in

developing a strong Advanced Clean Truck Rule. Overall,

we strongly support the rule before the Board today, which

represents a bold step forward for the environment,

workers, and our communities.

I want to underscore -- underscore that the

strong reporting requirement in the ACT Rule positions us

for an effective Fleet Rule. Comprehensive data on


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

120

contracting to successfully develop and implement the

Fleet Rule is necessary. And we know that companies that

rely on contractors especially misclassified drivers are

poorly positioned to adopt clean truck rules.

Many of these misclassified drivers earn under

the State minimum wage per hour. Net incomes averaging

between 28 and 35 thousand a year. And in addition, they

face high financing costs and are highly exploited by

their employers. So from our discussions with you, we

know that you recognize this need and we urge you to stay

focused on the problem of misclassified drivers and

illegal contracting industry. And so we hope that you'll

include language in today's Board resolution to address

this problem, as we move forward to implement the Fleet

Rule.

Lastly, I'd like to urge CARB to listen to our

environmental justice communities and do as much as you

can to increase the sales for the Class 7 and 8 tractors,

which we know have a disproportionate impact on these

predominantly low-income communities of color living in

trucking corridors.




After that, we have Vazken Kassakhian -- sorry if I


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

121

mispronounced that -- Christina -- Christina

Austria-Loyoza and Nidia Bellow.

So first, let's go to the phone number ending in

042. Please state your name for the record, and you can

begin.

Hello, are you there?

Okay. We'll move on to the next speaker.

Vazken, I have unmuted your microphone, if you'd like to

unmute yourself and begin.

MR. KASSAKHIAN: Hi. Can you hear me okay?

Can you hear me okay?


MR. KASSAKHIAN: Okay. Great. Hi. My name is

Vazken Kassakhian with Southern California Edison.

Southern California Edison would like to voice

our support for the Advanced Clean Truck Rule. We know

that there's a lot of important pieces that will need to

be put in place to ensure the rule's success. Utilities

will surely need to plan ahead. And that planning is

underway.

A preliminary assessment of estimated grid

impacts and constraints from significant levels of

medium-, heavy-duty electric vehicle load two to three

times higher adoption than expected in the ACT Rule

including the recently revised higher targets shows that


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

122

the grid impacts and incremental work in Southern

California Edison's service territory is within the scope

of the utility's ability to manage.

There is more work to be done to be sure and

Challenges remain. We view these challenges as a

collective call to action. We stand ready to do our part

to help facilitate the transformation of the

transportation sector across medium- and heavy-duty

segments.

The ACT Rule supports California's critical goals

of confronting climate change and improving air quality.

Transitioning substantial portions of goods movement to

zero emissions is especially important in our region,

where pollution disproportionately impacts communities

near heavily trafficked truck and freight corridors.

We stand ready to support our customers, our

communities, and stand ready to help support the rule and

ensure its success.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is Christina. I have activated

your microphone, you can unmute yourself and begin.

MS. AUSTRIA-LOZOYA: Hi. Good morning, Chair and

fellow Board members. My name is Christine

Austria-Lozoya. I am in support of Item 3. I am an


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

123

electrician with IBEW Local 11. The ACT Rule needs to

continue to focus on zero-emission transportation and

continue to create the market for zero-emission

transportation.

Near zero-emission trucks do not have the same

climate and health benefits as zero-emission. There's

sufficient time for a transition to zero-emission. This

rule strikes a balance between the need to clean up the

air and the need to provide incentives so the business

community, including manufacturers, can adapt timely.



Why don't we go ahead and try phone number 042

again. I have unmuted you, if you are there.

Okay. Unfortunately, we can't hear you, so we'll

move on to Nidia Bello. Nidia, I have activated your

microphone.

MS. BELLO: Okay. Can you hear me?


MS. BELLO: Thank you. So hello, everyone. My

name is Nidia. I'm a community organizer with CAUSE,

Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy in

Oxnard, California. So first of all, thank you for moving

forward with this groundbreaking electric truck rule

requiring manufacturers to build more electric trucks.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

124

Oxnard has been heavily impacted by environmental

racism for many years. Just a few years ago, we advocated

and organized to stop the construction of yet another

power plant. Oxnard has been treated as a dumping ground

for these toxic industries. Our city is also home to

routes of trucks that transport from the Port of Hueneme.

And for years, we've -- I've seen trucks not only in

(inaudible) constantly coming in and out. Many trucks

blowing toxic fumes that make our heads hurt, and make it

hard to breathe. And noting that these are both

communities that are majority working class people of

color.

This ruling is important to us, because our

communities need relief from pollution. Our communities

are being impacted by COVID-19, housing crisis, xenophobic

immigration policies, and limited access to health care.

This ruling is something positive that we can do

for your communities. And if trucks are going to continue

going through our communities, they need to be trucks that

won't pollute our communities any longer.

So we ask that you vote yes on this ruling.

Thank you.


Our next -- oop, our nex three speakers is phone

number ending in 600, then David Flores, and then Nico


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

125

Bouwkamp.

So phone number ending 600, I have activated your

microphone. Please state your name for the record and you

can begin.

MS. LYNCH: Thank you. This is Kathy Lynch and I

represent the California Waste Haulers Council. We

provide comprehensive waste and recycling services in

Central and Southern California. We would like to provide

some practical considerations as you deliberate regulation

today. Our industry has been working in low income and AB

617 communities with our local governments and air

districts to implement numerous regulations, such as the

75 percent source reduction, recycling, and composing

goal, and the mandatory commercial recycling law requiring

organics diversion.

As a rate-regulated industry, we recently

completed 20 franchise agreements in some of those

communities. And there was a rate increase of $0.69 per

month per residential customer and considerable outcry and

concerns raised. Every time we have these negotiations,

Prop 218 is raised by all the parties and must be

evaluated.

Next up for our industry is SB 1383 the

Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Law. And we know from

CalRecycle studies with that they anticipate a $5 a month


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

126

increase for that measure which starts in 2022. We have

been surveying our fleets and preliminary numbers for the

cost of these vehicles will add another $15 to the rent --

residential monthly bill.

This needs to be discussed and evaluated in each

community. Our industry is not an off-the-shelf

correction, but requires customized trucks through our

many operational performance issues we would hope to

discuss with you. And it's quite likely with the

increased weight of the battery, we will lose considerable

payload --

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: About 30 seconds left.

MS. LYNCH: -- that will increase our VMT and

increase the need for more routes and trucks. We often

are lumped with buses due to duty cycle characteristics,

but there is an important difference. Bus ridership is

subsidized and we are funded by unsubsidized rates.

In closing, we do not oppose this regulation, but

we would respectfully request consideration of a separate

pathway for the waste industry as you did successfully in

2008 with the original CARB Solid Waste Collection Vehicle

Regulation, so we can work through the industry's unique

issues and continue on our environmental pathway.

Thank you.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

127

Our next speaker is David Flores. David, I have

activated your microphone. You can go ahead and begin.

MR. FLORES: Good morning. David Flores of

Environmental Health Coalition. EHC works in communities

that rank high on CalEnviroScreen and suffer health and

safety impacts from truck traffic. EHC supports this rule

in its current form and we urge adoption.

In addition to the AB 617 portside communities of

Barrio Logan, and West National City, the San Diego region

also includes the border area. Aclima air sampling in

2019 found black carbon levels at the high end correspond

to a cancer risk level of over 2,000 per million in the

Otay Mesa area.

More recently, Aclima week-to-week average values

during COVID-19 from March 20th to April 24th present

reductions in black carbon in the first five weeks.

However, levels increased the last two weeks back to

pre-COVID levels.

This corresponds with our information about

diesel sources. Our cargo volumes were down only a little

or even up in the case of some imports. The shipyards

have continued to operate. Cross-border commercial

traffic is also considered essential. SANDAG's statistics

for truck crossings through the state's three commercial

ports of entry broke a new record last year, processing


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

128

more than 1.4 million northbound trucks with 800,000 of

those in Otay Mesa port of entry.

This does not account for the two to five hours

of idling these trucks spend queued up waiting to cross.

We're already doing everything we can locally. Working

with the City of San Diego to establish and enforce truck

routes with the Port of San Diego to educate truck drivers

on routes, with the San Diego Air Pollution Control

District through AB 617 to incentivize cleaner trucks, and

pursuing an effort of three decades to reform the land-use

plans to better separate industrial from residential land

uses.

However, local efforts cannot compel a faster

industry-wide shift to electric trucks. CARB should not

invest in polluting natural gas. And these should not be

considered under the ACT and related rules. EHC supports

this rule in its current form and we urge adoption.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is Nico. I have activated your

microphone and you can begin when you're ready.

MR. BOUWKAMP: Can you hear me?


MR. BOUWKAMP: Thank you. Good morning, Madam

Chair, Madam Vice Chair, members of the Board. Thank you


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

129

for this opportunity to provide public comment on the

proposed Advanced Clean Trucks Rule. I am Nico Bouwkamp,

Technical Program Manager of the California Fuel Cell

Partnership. And I am the staff lead for the Heavy-Duty

Fuel Cell Electric Truck Industry Member Task Force.

We now you as the Board, together with staff,

have the intent to include both types of zero-mission

electrics truck technologies, that is battery electric and

fuel cell electric. However, during the process leading

to today's proposed rule, it appears there's a need for

more balance.

For example, the hydrogen fuel cell electric

truck option appears to be considered as a marginal

contributor in the impact calculations. Considering the

revised application timeline of the ACT Regulation, now

it's 2035 and beyond, the ongoing discussion about the

implementation of the ACT Rule and development of the ACT

Fleet Rule offer an opportunity to balance the approach.

Moving forward, one item that needs to receive

significant attention, that's mentioned during the staff

presentation and by GO-Biz, is the fueling infrastructure

for the zero-emission trucks and vision by the ACT Rule,

because this is the component that facilitates the

successful operation of these trucks and the success of

the ACT Rule.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

130

Such increased attention will also benefit the

roll-out and cost of fuel cell -- of fuel for light-duty

ZEVs, because it incentivizes investment in renewable fuel

production capacity, both for hydrogen and electricity.

This could be part of the ACT Fleet Rule or this could be

a parallel initiative resembling what was done for

light-duty ZEVs through the Low Carbon Fuel Standard.

Additionally, CARB should assess how truck

manufacturers and fleet operators could be incentivized to

push for longer range vehicles through the credit system

for trucks, because this aligns with the needs of the

truck fleet operators, the longer range vehicles with

maximum payload capacity.



Our next three speakers are Tommy Faavae, Tim

Carmichael and Luis Montez.

Tommy, I have activated your microphone. You can


MR. FAAVAE: Good morning. Can you hear me?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: A little quiet.

MR. FAAVAE: Good morning. My name is Tommy

Faavae. And I am a member of IBEW Local 11, Electrical

Workers.

The ACT rule is critical to advance large-scale


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

131

electrification in the medium- and heavy-duty sectors.

This rule will begin the process of communicating to

manufacturers that California is creating a marketplace

for these electric trucks. As electricians, we are

excited about the good job creation that will follow with

charging infrastructure installation. We are the

electricians who did the Volvo LIGHTS project phase 1,

Penske leasing chargers, and all of the City of L.A.

police, fire, and municipal -- municipality fleets.

We need electrification for our health and for

the good jobs it will create. We have also done Southern

California Edison territory, the first allotment of EV

work. And we look forward to working closely with the

staff. When it comes to infrastructure and workforce

development, we need labor at the table. And we're

locked, and loaded, and ready to start this

electrification work.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is Tim Carmichael. Tim, I have

activated your microphone. You can unmute yourself and

begin.

MR. CARMICHAEL: Good morning, members of the

Board. Tim Carmichael with Southern California Gas

Company here and requesting a amendment to the proposed


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

132

rule that staff has bought to you.

Ryan Kenny and Ashley Remillard already spoke to

the details, but we are asking for a inclusion of the low

NOx 0.02 gram engines as part of the near-zero definition.

To the Chair's comments a moment ago, you know,

the staff -- ARB staff is bringing a new definition for

near zero, which is in conflict with the widely used use

of that phrase over the last at least five years, where it

has included the low NOx 0.02 gram engine. But the

definition as part of this proposal is excluding that, and

it's not just in this rule.

We're looking at the breadth of efforts by the

Air Resources Board. Look at the ACT, look at the Mobile

Source Strategy for 2020, look at the Omnibus Rule, look

at your incentive funding in HVIP, in every case, you are

devaluing the potential contribution of 0.02 gram low-NOx

engines running on renewable natural gas, even though it

is your most cost-effective strategy available today to

address the very serious challenge of heavy-duty trucks.

And as the air districts have testified before you

numerous times, it's not possible for them to get to the

air quality goals without dramatic changeover in the

diesel truck fleet. And the near-zero engines, whether

they're running on renewable natural gas or renewable

diesel are key to that. And that's what we're pushing for


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

133

and that's why this definition matters so much.


Our next speaker is Luis Montez followed by John

Clements, Mayra Munguia, and Sarah Sachs.

So Luis -- uh-oh. So, Luis, I'm getting an error

that you are using an older version of Zoom and I cannot

activate your microphone. So we have a call-in number on

screen here with the access code. If you can just put

that into your phone and call in, we'll get to you a

little bit later.

So next speaker after Luis is John Clements.

John, I have activated your microphone. You can unmute

yourself and begin.

John, are you there?

MR. CLEMENTS: There we go. There's the unmute.

Thank you, Ryan. Good morning, Chair Nichols and members

of the Board. My name is John Clements. I'm with

Hummingbird EV. Thank for the opportunity to express our

support for the proposed Advanced Clean Truck Rule.

Hummingbird EV is headquartered in Livermore and

we are an engineering and manufacturing firm of electric

vehicle powertrains. We specialize in medium- and

heavy-duty powertrains and provide innovative

well-to-wheel solutions and unique fast charging EVSEs

that are onboard chargers, also vehicle-to-vehicle and


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

134

vehicle-to-grid technologies for both on- and off-road

emissions heavy-duty vehicles.

We appreciate the Board's continued effort to

advance commercialization and adoption of zero-emission

technology. We support the ACT and urge approval of this

regulation, knowing that it's going to further transform

California's transportation system to zero emissions and

help achieve the State's air pollution and climate goals.

These aggressive, but achievable, targets are

critical to improving our air quality in some of the

state's most adversely affected and disadvantaged

communities, such as the San Joaquin Valley where I spent

most of my life. And these are often the only means of

reliable transportation, both for agriculture and freight

movement by truck.

So ACT is critical. Thank you for both your

local, State, national, and world leadership. And I

appreciate this opportunity. Have a great day. Bye now.


speaker is Mayra. I have activated your microphone. You

can unmute yourself and begin.

MS. MUNGUIA: Hello. My name is Mayra and I'm a

CAUSE Youth Leader and live in Oxnard.

The decision to build more electric trucks is

significant to us, because it's safer for our environment.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

135

Pollution, especially here in Oxnard, is present and very

is dangerous to the people who live here. Ruling in the

electric trucks will cause less health problems because of

the lesser percentage of popu -- pollution and will

benefit the people of Oxnard by providing cleaner air.

In South Oxnard, we already have power plants and

active truck routes that contribute to air pollution and

harm the health of others, so introducing electric trucks

will be a step closer to improving everyone's health.

In the future, community members will be less at

risk for the dangers of air pollution that target

children, the elderly, and those who have respiratory

problems. While I personally don't have any respiratory

problems or conditions with regards to any respiratory

issues, I do have family and friends that do, and are at

greater risk of becoming more sick due to pollution.

By reducing the air pollution in Oxnard, we will

be able to have significant benefit to all those that

live, especially for those with respiratory problems or

those who are at risk of them.

Community members like me ar advocating for more

regulations that require less air pollution and would like

to have more regulation on having cleaner air.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

136

Let me try Luis again. So, Luis, if you're still

on the Zoom, our call-in number and access code is on the

screen and put -- please dial star nine to raise your

hand, and I'll be able to see phone number pop at the

bottom there. So we'll move on to Sarah Sachs. And after

Sarah, we have Andy Schwartz, Ruben Aronin, and William

Zobel.

So Sarah, I have activated your microphone. You


MS. SACHS: Hi. Good morning. Can everyone hear

me?


MS. SACHS: All right. Thank you. Good morning,

Chair Nichols and members of the Board. My name is Sarah

Sachs and I work with Ceres. We run the BICEP, Business

for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy network, a

coalition of 58 major businesses, many of whom have

substantial operations or are headquartered in California.

We coordinate the Ceres Investor Network which

includes 175 members with collectively nearly $30 trillion

in assets under management. Ceres also runs the Corporate

Electric Vehicle Alliance, a collaboration of 18

companies, including Amazon, DHL, Genentech, and more

looking to electrify their fleets.

I urge the Board to adopt the proposed Advanced


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

137

Clean Truck Rule. Today we submitted two support letters

from 19 investors, nine companies, and 180 California

hospitals. These companies, investors, and hospitals see

reducing GHGs and costs for transportation as an economic

and public health imperative. I know you will read these

letters and encourage you to reach out to us, if you have

any questions for us or the signatories.

The proposed Advanced Clean Truck Rule will

accelerate the cost effective deployment electric medium-

and heavy-duty vehicles, allow our members to meet

financial and climate goals, and significantly reduce air

pollution related health impacts and cost across the

State.

Now more than ever, this rule is critical to

ensure the long-term health of California's economy and

citizens, as we grapple with the new circumstances and

challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thank you for your

work on this important issue.


So we have a phone number at the bottom here.

I'm going to unmute this one. Luis, is that you? Phone

number ending in 686. Luis, is that you?

If it is, we can't hear you. Apologize.

Okay. So I'll -- we will come back to you. So

our next speaker is Andy Schwartz. Andy, I have activated


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

138

your microphone. Go ahead and begin.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Good morning. Can you hear me

okay?


MR. SCHWARTZ: Great. Chair Nichols, Vice Chair

Berg, and members of the Board. My name is Andy Schwartz.

And I'm here today speaking on behalf of Tesla. As a

mission-driven company, Tesla stands in strong support of

the rule as revised and encourages the Board to adopt this

historic regulation. This rule has foundational efforts

to transition medium- and heavy-duty vehicles to

zero-emission technologies. For those manufacturers,

Tesla among them, that have made bold announcements

regarding their intentions to produce zero-emission

medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, this regulation effect --

effectively holds them to account by creating real

opportunity costs for failure to deliver.

With regard to Tesla's intentions, we are 100

percent committed to bringing the Tesla semi and the Tesla

Cybertruck to market. Our current roadmap envisions

production for both vehicles beginning in 2021, well in

advance of when the ACT becomes binding. Both vehicles

have generated a lot of excitement since their unveiling.

In the case of the Tesla semi, we've seen strong interest,

backed by pre-orders from companies representing every


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

139

major sector with heavy-duty freight needs. In the case

of the Cybertruck, we received over 250,000 pre-orders

within the first week of unveiling.

Underlying this demand is recognition that the

value proposition of these vehicles as incredibly

compelling. For the Tesla semi, we estimate that it will

only take two to three years for a customer to recoup the

higher upfront cost of these vehicles. And as battery

costs decline, this will only get better.

There are those who will continue to say ARB is

doing too much too soon, that the charging infrastructure

and the demand won't be there and that the goals are too

ambitious. We respectfully disagree.

Charging infrastructure can and will be built.

We've done it on the light-duty side as demonstrated by

our supercharger network. Importantly, progress has been

made in developing a common connector for heavy-duty

charging. For more than a year, we and other vehicle

manufacturers, charging equipment providers, utilities,

and customers have been working on the design of a

connector standard for higher powered charging.

Additionally, extensive resources are being

marshaled in support of heavy-duty and medium-duty

charging infrastructure via initiatives of the CPUC and

the CEC.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

140

Further more and perhaps more fundamentally, the

point of regulation is not to simply require things that

are going to happen anyway. It is to push the market to

move more quickly, given the criticality of transitioning

away from fossil fuels as fast and as effectively as we

can.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak

today.


Our next speaker is Ruben Aronin. Ruben, I have

activated your microphone.

MR. ARONIN: Thank you so much. Hi. I'm Ruben

Aronin, the director of the California Business Alliance

for a Clean Economy. And I'm speaking both as a parent of

an asthmatic child and an advocate representing more than

1,000 small and mainstream businesses from throughout the

state.

We'd like to applaud the staff, Board, advocates,

and industry for coming together and working so hard to

bring us to this historic moment that I think may be more

beneficial to -- than the Clean Cars Rule that we're still

fighting with the federal government over, as far as

bridging near-term air quality and climate benefits, but

also economic benefits to our state, and hopefully leading

our world as our northeast states reminded us as well.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

141

The great COVID recession is like no other.

While whole industries have been decimated, we've only

seen a modest decrease in diesel consumption and truck

traffic from Amazon, UPS, FedEx, and other delivery

services is actually increasing.

As we sheltered in place, our shift to online

retail accelerated, underscoring the need to clean up and

electrify our goods movement industry in a shift that's

likely to last with us for some time. At a time when a

respiratory virus threatens our nation, we must

aggressively address air pollution, asthma, and climate

change, especially for those most impacted in


The marketplace for electric trucks is already

growing. Orders for tens of thousands of electric trucks

are pouring in from Fortune 500 companies.

Electrification of our transportation industry is one of

the most significant and forward-thinking economic

stimulus and job creation strategies that we can and must

pursue.

Before the pandemic started, our electric vehicle

market supported more than 275,000 jobs statewide and

the -- this industry is a well paying industry that can

only continue to grow.

Thank you for your leadership. We strongly


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

142

support the rule and look forward to collaborating on the

future actions that ARB and our State government must make

to bring about the transformation to an electric

transportation future that we all need and deserve.


I'm going to try the phone number one more time.

That's phone number ending in 686. Luis, is that you?

CHAIR NICHOLS: Ryan, could we now let people

know about our plans for taking a break also --


CHAIR NICHOLS: -- at lunch time?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Sounds good.

CHAIR NICHOLS: So we do take -- we do intend to

take a lunch break for a half an hour. And I think that

since it's now five of 12:00, we should probably push on

through to 12:30, and then break from 12:30 to 1:00, so

people can make plans to go get a bite eat, stretch, et

cetera. Everybody who's in line will still be in line to

speak and we'll just pick up where we left off after --

after we take a break.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Sounds good. Thank you,

Madam Chair. I will probably give more information as it

becomes 12:30. But for now, we can move on to our next

couple speakers until then.

So, Luis, unfortunately we can't hear you. You


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

143

can email me at [email protected]. I can probably help you

with technical difficulties or you can email in -- if you

have any written comments, you can send -- send me

there -- send them there. I apologize if we can't get

you -- the mic to work today.

Our next speaker is William Zobel. And after

William, it's Soledad Camacho, Will Barrett, and Thomas

Lawson. So, William, I have activated your microphone.


MR. ZOBEL: Great. Thank you. Can you hear me?


MR. ZOBEL: Very Good. Good morning, Madam Chair

and Madam Vice Chair, members of the Board and Staff. I

am Bill Zobel, the new Executive Director of the Hydrogen

Business Council. The Council represents 112 companies

engaged in the commercialization of hydrogen and fuel cell

technologies. We want to than the staff for all their

hard work put into this rule and believe it puts the state

on the right path to reducing emission and decarbonizing

the transportation sector.

The Council supports the regulation and looks for

to working with staff on the implementation of the rule

and future measures to achieve the state's goals for

transportation.

One matter, however, that we want to point out in


mailto:[email protected]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

144

the rule that may be unintended is the definition of

all-electric range. We simply want to ensure that the

definition includes energy stored on board the vehicle in

the form of hydrogen that converts to electricity.

This will help ensure and make it clear that CARB

maintains its tradition of including both types of

zero-emission electric vehicle technologies, both fuel

cell electric and battery electric in its regulations and

programs.

The Council believes if the state is to achieve

its aggressive carbon reduction goals, fuel cell electric

trucks and hydrogen technology as a whole needs to be

integrated into every aspect of the state's carbon

reduction strategy. CARB can do its part by ensuring

zero-emission transportation rules, funding programs,

research, and all the like, equitably addresses and

explicitly includes hydrogen fuel cell technology.

We appreciate the opportunity to participate and

comment. Thank you.


Our next speaker is Soledad. I have activated

your microphone. You can unmute yourself and begin.

MS. CAMACHO: Hello. Can you guys hear me?


MS. CAMACHO: Okay. Good morning -- or


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

145

afternoon, everyone. My name is Soledad. I'm a youth

leader with CAUSE here in Oxnard and I support that ACT

Rule.

The California Air Resources Board is moving

forward with its groundbreaking Electric Truck Rule,


beginning in 2030. It's important to us, because in our

community of South Oxnard, a majority of our population

has asthma or other respiratory illnesses.

I want clean air for my community and the future

generation to come. I care about Oxnard and believe this

is a great step into a better future.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is Will barrett. Will, I have

activated your microphone. Go ahead and begin.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Ryan. I'm Will Barrett.

I'm the Director of Clean Air Advocacy with the American

Lung Association. And the American Lung Association is in

strong support of the strengthened proposal and urge

adoption today as proposed.

We're joined in our strong support by over 20

health and medical organizations, including those

representing lung doctors, nurses, pediatricians, asthma

coalitions, and medical societies across California.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

146

We view this rule as a historic step toward a

healthier California. And as many members of impacted

communities have voiced today, zero emissions support

health, equity, and community resiliency.

The strengthened proposal will yield significant

clean air and public health benefits by cutting particle

pollution, NOx, and greenhouse gases for decades to come

in support of meeting our clean air and climate standards.

The rule will save over 900 lives and reduce or avoid

almost $9 billion in health costs.

I wanted to quickly agree and appreciate Chair

Nichols' comments on the central and critical focus of the

ACT Rule on the deployment of zero-emission technologies,

rather than on combustion technologies. The recent re --

recently released Low NOx Omnibus Rule is, in our view,

the appropriate venue for accelerating low-NOx

technologies in the combustion fleet. We look forward to

working with you on that rule as well.

The American Lung Association supports the rapid

and widespread shift to zero-emission transportation as a

vital -- as vital to improving lung health and saving

lives. The proposed ACT Rule focuses on this shift and we

in the health community support this clear focus on

zero-emission technologies.

We're also encouraged by the resolution language


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

147

focused on achieving 100 percent zero-emission truck

fleets in support of community and climate health. And

finally, we'd greatly appreciate hearing from the -- such

strong support from other states and NESCAUM this morning

for this measure. And moving forward, we hope and

encourage all states to really consider adopting this rule

to accelerate the public health benefit across the

country.

In closing, thank you very much. We strongly

support and urge your adoption of the proposal today.

It's been a real pleasure to work with the staff and Board

on this measure.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is Thomas Lawson. After Thomas,

we have Cindy Donis, Todd Campbell, and Leslie Aguayo.

Thomas, I have activated your microphone. You

can go ahead and begin.

MR. LAWSON: Thank you. Good afternoon. I

appreciate the opportunity to comment. So I'm Thomas

Lawson. I represent the California Natural Gas Vehicle

Coalition. And we are here on behalf of the industry to

ask for a change in the definition of near zero.

And I wanted to clear up some confusion, because

I think that there is a belief that we are against the ACT


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

148

Rule, and that's not the case. We believe strongly that

the ACT Rule addresses long-term goals, and where the

State and Air Resources Board has said we need to go.

What our concern is, is what do we do between now and

then, and how are we supporting and addressing short-term

goals.

You know, the rule doesn't kick-in for another

four, or five, or six years. And even at that, it is

three percent, five percent of vehicles. So my question

and our issue is what are we going to do about the other

90 percent of vehicles being produced and on the road at

this time?

And we are -- you know, we believe that having a

technology that is the fruit of collaboration between

private and public industry created the low-NOx engine is

ready to meet that particular goal and what we can do

between now and then.

I think lastly, you know, one of our issues is

that, you know, we have, you know, been for, I think, the

last almost six months now asking about this definition

change. And every time we've brought up some credible

changes that we think need to be happening, we have been,

you know, ushered or directed to the next thing that's on

the -- on the board.

So we're looking for a little bit more


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

149

collaboration, and we'd like to work closer with the Air

Resources Board on some of this stuff. Our industry

hasn't been reached out to talk about this Omnibus Rule.

And so, you know, the question is what is the process

there on getting changes that our industry should have

some input on, if that is the case or the place where we

need to have these discussions.

So we look forward to a robust discussion about

what we need to do between now and then, and thank you for

the opportunity.

MS. DONIS: Good morning, members of the Board.

My name is Cindy Donis. I live in the City of South Gate

and I'm member and organizer for East Yard Communities for

Environmental Justice.

I'm here to voice my support of the Electric

Trucks Rule, but I also want to urge you to make it

stronger, specifically for the heavy-duty Class 7 and 8

tractors.

Communities along the 710 corridor are completely

overburdened with diesel pollution and truck traffic.

Forth to 60 thousand truck trips occur every single day on

the 710 Freeway, and this pollution manifests itself in

asthma, cancer, and other illnesses that my family and my

neighbors are enduring.

And so we're also in the midst of a health crisis


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

150

and pandemic that has shown us that if -- if we keep

denying clean air for low-income communities of color, if

we don't transition to zero-emission technologies, then

we're setting ourselves, our communities, particularly

low-income communities of color, to be much more

vulnerable and potentially to death due to COVID and other

illnesses.

So I appreciate the Board taking initiative by

creating this rule, but it can be stronger and it can help

begin transitioning away from diesel and gas trucks sooner

than later. I urge the Board to raise the sales

requirements for the heavy-duty trucks as high as possible

and vote yes on the ACT.

Thank you.


speaker is Todd Campbell. Todd, I have activated your

microphone. Please unmute yourself and you can begin.

MR. CAMPBELL: Good morning. Can you hear me?


MR. CAMPBELL: Good morning, Madam Chair and

members of the Board. Clean Energy would like to ask the

Board to make a critical amendment to include the most

stringent low-NOx truck -- trucks under the rule's

near-zero definition consistent with CARB's other

near-zero definitions and to provide partial credit to


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

151

low-NOx trucks until the Omnibus Rule requires the

manufacture of such trucks in 2027 or beyond. In that

way, the Board will ensure near-term emissions reductions

will be realized to provide much needed relief for

disadvantaged communities struggling to breathe. Our

concerns today are even greater than expressed in our

formal comments submitted on May 28th as Gladstein

Neandross and Associates has since reviewed staff's total

cost of ownership of zero-emission trucks.

In GNA's analysis they found that the charger

network service cost and insurance costs were not

included. EVSE redundancy and resiliency were not

considered or ignored -- and ignored. The battery

capacity required for vehicle range is underestimated by

50 percent, putting aside staff's nearly idealized

assumptions about fleet operation.

The takeaway is that CARB's totally cost of

operation for zero-emission trucks are underestimated by

80 to 90 percent. In 2023, the State will have an

opportunity to replace hundreds of thousands of pre-2010

trucks with something better than diesel, a technology we

know emits up to six times more emissions than its

certification.

This rule does not begin until 2024. As a

student of history, we should recognize that the ZEV


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

152

light-duty program has been in place for almost four

decades, and light-duty cars still make up less than five

percent of the marketplace. We would be foolish not to

include 0.02 low-NOx trucks for the next seven years as a

safeguard for public health reasons and federal attainment

deadlines, especially if we fall short of staff's market

penetration projections, which I think are highly

optimistic at 50 percent in 2030.

With that, I'd like to thank you for your time.


Our next speaker is Leslie Aguayo. After Leslie,

I have Jillian Solomon, Chris Nevers, and Jennifer Kropke.

So, Leslie, I have activated your microphone. Go

ahead and begin.

MS. AGUAYO: Hi. Good afternoon Chair Nichols

and members of the Board. Thank you for your time and

opportunity to speak today. My name is Leslie Aguayo from

the Greenlining Institute, a racial equity and advocacy

organization in Oakland. And we are in support of the ACT

Rule.

By voting yes on electric trucks, CARB can

protect the health of families living in diesel death

zones and address the systemic marginalization of low

income and communities of color that are

disproportionately suffering from truck pollution.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

153

Californians are in need of ACT for economic

stimulus, furthering environmental justice efforts,

continuing our fight against climate change, improving

working conditions, and transforming our markets.

The Electric Truck Standard will give a clear

market signal that supports California's jobs, job

creating in each vehicle sector. With our current

unemployment rate at 15 percent and impending economic

shocks, our state is in need of as many economic

development opportunities as possible.

CARB's ACT Rule has the potential to equitably

invest in California's disadvantaged communities who have

carried the burden of our state's transportation

externalities. The ACT Rule's passage is only the

beginning and we must ensure that equitable implementation

follows.

Poor communities of color continue to suffer most

from the legacy of segregation and racially motivated

freeway construction and truck corridors through their

neighborhoods. As we collectively navigate these

unprecedented times that have brought both racial and --

that have brought racial inequities to a head, it's

paramount the policy levers such as the ACT Rule are

passed for the protection and investment of communities

most burdened for the compounding public health crisis of


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

154

both COVID-19 and racial injustice.

Thank you for your time and for your leadership.


Our next speaker Is Jillian Solomon. Jillian, I

have activated your microphone. You can unmute yourself

and begin.

MS. SOLOMON: Hello. Can you hear me?


MS. SOLOMON: Great. So my name is Jillian

Solomon and I am with Motiv Power Systems. First, I do

just want to thank CARB Board and staff for your patience

upon listening to this long list of public comments today.

Motiv is a California-based manufacturer of Class

4 to 6 all-electric vehicles. So we know firsthand that

this market segment is ready for electrification. The

technology is available and reliable today.

Thus, we strongly support CARB's increased sales

target for this segment, because we are confident in this

market's ability to meet these set targets. We are in

full support of the ACT Rule, but we would like to point

out that its success is highly dependent on adequate and

reliable vehicle and infrastructure incentives, as well as

other policies, such as the Fleet Rule, which is being

developed in conjunction with the ACT Regulation.

We believe that this will ensure a smooth


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

155

transition to ZEV, as it will create and strengthen the

ZEV truck market.

With that said, Motiv asks for this rule to be

passed and that these comments are kept in mind. And

thank you for your consideration. And I'll give back 40

seconds.


Our next speaker is Chris Nevers. Chris, I have

activated your microphone. You unmute go ahead and begin.

MR. NEVERS: Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair

Nichols and Board members. My name is Chris Nevers

representing the Rivian Automotive in support of the

recently improved Advanced Clean Truck proposal.

For those unfamiliar, Rivian is an independent

U.S. company with over 2,000 employees in the U.S.,

Canada, and the United Kingdom working to develop and

produce all-electric pickup trucks, SUVs, and delivery

vans. Delivery vans joined up with Amazon are scheduled

to be delivered beginning in 2021. Rivian expects to

deliver tens of thousands of these Class 2b and 3

heavy-duty trucks before the ACT requirements begin, with

the goal to deliver 100,000 to Amazon by 2030.

Rivian is also in the process of finalizing

production capabilities for its first pickup truck, the

R1T, and full-sized SUV the R1S that will be available for


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

156

sale beginning in calendar year 2021. With features like

a possible 400-mile range on a single charge, and the

ability to tow over 10,000 pounds, the R1 will open up new

classes of zero-emission vehicles to the consumer, even

possibly displacing some Class 2b conventional

applications.

Clearly, as demonstrated with Rivian's expected

deliver of 100,000 heavy-duty vans, the expansion of

zero-emission's performance into the full-sized SUV and

pickup truck segments, plus Rivian's adaptable skateboard

chassis, the goals targeted by the ACT are feasible.

The only clarification Rivian would seek to the

ACT proposal centers around failure to comply within --

with requirements in a timely manner. Perhaps in the

final statements of reasons, CARB could reiterate that ZEV

penalties are not intended to serve as pay-to-play

mechanism. CARB could further clarify that although

penalties applied to deficits that have not been made up

in the time allotted, penalties do not obviate the need

for manufacturers to fill ZEV credit deficits.

Again, Rivian supports the ACT proposal and

thanks the Board for its leadership and time.


Our next speaker is Jennifer Kropke. After

Jennifer, we have Silvia Calzada, Bernie Kotlier, and Joy


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

157

Williams.

So Jennifer, I have activated your microphone.


MS. KROPKE: Good morning, Board members and

Chair Nichols. I am Jennifer Kropke and I join with my

union brothers and sisters as well as our over 12,000

members in Los Angeles and also on behalf of over 400

union electrical contractors.

As you can see, I'm a numbers person and I wanted

to share Los Angeles and Long Beach's latest drayage

registry statistics. Less than one percent of trucks are

zero emission and less than four percent are approximately

that or near zero.

Although we are adamantly in favor of zero

emission, these statistics demonstrate that our history of

incentives on the demand side are utterly insufficient.

As a regulatory community, we have to ask ourselves why

have we failed far? We believe this is because all of the

incentives have been on the demand side and that this rule

will provide them on the supply side.

The ACT is a necessary supply-side strategy that

will allow us to achieve all of our transportation

electrification goals within an adequate time frame, not

to mention to echo the comments of my union brothers and

sisters, this will create good zero-emission charging


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

158

infrastructure jobs at a time when California needs it

most.

I want to thank the staff for all of their hard

work on this and thank the Board members for all of their

hard work on this as well. We are asking that you support

the path forward and create good jobs and help us with our

air quality as well.

Thank you so much.


speaker is Silvia Calzada.

Silvia, I have activated your microphone. You


MS. CALZADA: Yes can you hear me?


MS. CALZADA: Excellent.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the

California Air Resource Board. My name is Silvia Calzada,

a long-time constituent of the City of National City in

San Diego, California. And I'm currently residing at the

Paradise Creek Apartments in the area of Old Town National

City, a portside environmental justice community.

As a patient with asthma and a steering committee

member in the AB 617 Community Air Protection Program, I

urge you to approve the Advanced Clean Trucks Rule. It is

a great urgency to implement greener holistic systems as


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

159

it is mentally and physically overwhelming by the constant

uncontrollable shutdowns of my airways, because of the

climate change that's caused by air pollution and other

contaminants.

The ACT Rule will not only refine the emission

treatment systems, but will also reinforce -- reinforce

the purification of our environment, and respiratory

systems young and wise like mine, and at the grass roots

community leader.

In advance, I truly appreciate the tireless

efforts of collaborators involved in reevaluating and

presenting organic programs and actions to revitalize and

beautify our neighborhoods. For your willingness and

interest to improve our environment and human health,

thank you. Please approve the ACT Rule.


Our next speaker is Bernie. I have activated

your microphone. You can unmute yourself and begin.

MR. KOTLIER: Hi. This is Bernie. Can you hear

me?


MR. KOTLIER: Chair Nichols and members of the

Board, I'm Bernie Kotlier representing the IBEW and the

National Electrical Contractors Association statewide.

We strongly support the proposed rule as written,


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

160

because it will clean the air, fight climate change,

improve the health of disadvantaged communities, and

create thousands of new, good jobs, which due to the

economic impact of the pandemic, are needed more than

ever.

Through the rulemaking process, we've heard

concerns about adequate charging infrastructure to power

clean trucks. The electrical contracting industry has

conducted the surveys and done the calculations. Our

current electrical workforce is able to construct more

than 160 percent of the state's three- to five-year goals

for heavy-duty charging infrastructure.

We've also heard comments about whether we can

afford the cost and pace of the transition to clean

trucks. The more important question is what will it cost

our state, our taxpayers, and those too young to pay taxes

if we dilute or delay implementation of the proposed rule?

Taxpayers will pay $500 million for measure AA

Bay Area Flood Control. SFO's new seawall costs $587

million. The 2018 wildfire season cost about $24 billion.

And UCLA scientists project a major increase in severe

climate change-related floods forecasting approximately a

trillion dollar disaster in decades to come.

And that's just the tip of the melting iceberg.

What we cannot afford are delays, dilution, and inaction.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

161

That's why we strongly support the proposed rule as

written.

Thank you.


speaker is Joy Williams. After Joy we have Wladimir

Sarmiento-Darkin, Francis Yan and Andrea Vidaurre.

So, Joy, I have activated your microphone. You


MS. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon. I'm Joy Williams

from Environmental Health Coalition. And I'm reading a

statement from San Diego's AB 617 steering committee.

Chair Nichols and members of the California Air

Resources Board, the AB 617 steering committee for the

portside environmental justice communities urges you to

adopt the ACT Rule in its current draft. The portside

areas include the San Diego communities of Barrio Logan,

Logan Heights, and Sherman Heights and the West National

City community.

Air monitoring conducted by the San Diego APCD

has confirmed that diesel exhaust is the number one

pollutant of concern for the portside communities.

Heavy-duty diesel trucks traveling through and around our

communities are a significant source of diesel. Local

efforts can reduce emissions from certain targeted sets of

trucks, such as those serving the cargo terminals for the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

162

Port of San Diego.

However, State level measures are needed to

ensure that all trucks on the road in California begin the

transition from fossil fuels to zero-emission vehicles.

The ACT will accelerate that transition by ensuring that

heavy-duty ZEV vehicles are commercially available in

large enough numbers to support compliance with the coming

Fleet Rule.

The portside steering committee includes

residents of the portside communities, medical experts,

organized labor, environmental and social justice

organizations, local industry, SDG&E, and representatives

of local government agencies, including the cities, the

port, our regional planning organization SANDAG, and

Caltrans. We are united in our recognition of the need to

reduce diesel emissions from mobile sources and urge you

to adopt the rule today.

Thank you.


Next up, we have Wladimir. I have unmute -- I


and begin.

MR. SARMIENTO-DARKIN: Hey, Ryan, can you har me?


MR. SARMIENTO-DARKIN: All right. Perfect. Good


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

163

afternoon, Madam Chair, Madam Vice Chair, members of the

Board. Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide

public comments today.

My name is Wladimir Sarmiento-Darkin. I am the

Business Development Director for hydrogen mobility in

California for Linde.

Linde is a leading industrial gas and technology

company with operations in more than a hundred countries.

We have been producing gases, including hydrogen in

California, for more than 50 years.

I want to express Linde's support for the

Advanced Clean Truck Regulation being discussed here

today. We, in Linde, believe electrification of

heavy-duty transportation is a key measure to achieve

aggressive decarbonization goals in California. We are

convince hydrogen fuel cells technology offer an important

inherent advantage to heavy-duty applications.

We are making investments in our California

Ontario facility and distribution network to support

materialization of this technology.

Thank you again for the opportunity to share our

support to this regulation and for your work and

leadership moving forward in this.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

164

Our next speaker is Francis Yang. Francis, I


and begin.

MR. YANG: Hello. My name is Francis. I'm an

organizer with the My Generation Campaign and Sierra Club.

I just want to say out community overwhelmingly supports

this rule. And this is kind of, in a lot of ways, like a

saving grace. This past week, the Ports of L.A. and Long

Beach just gave their Clean Air Action Plan update, which

was essentially just a natural gas update. The same thing

with AQMD and all of these indirect source rules where

they are saying that their goal is to go to zero

emissions, and yet there's no teeth -- there's no

timeline, there's no reality that's telling them that

they're actually going to implement anything.

I don't want to take up too much time, because I

think everybody is freaking tired and we've been on this

call since 9:00 a.m. All I want to say is that this is

kind of the only thing we have right now to say that we

can actually breathe in our communities and tell our

community that we're actually doing some sort of win and

have some sort of hope.

So please, please, please vote in support of the

ACT Rule and hold all of our other decision-makers

freaking accountable, because they don't do anything.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

165

Thanks so much.


Out next speaker is Andrea -- Andrea Vidaurre.

Sorry if I mispronounced that.

After Andrea, we have David Wooley, Sila

Kiliccote, and Paul Cort. And after Paul, we will take

our lunch break.

So Andrea, I have unmuted your microphone. If

you -- you can begin now.

MS. VIDAURRE: Thank you. Hello, Board members.

My name is Andrea Vidaurre. I'm with the Center for

Community Action and Environmental Justice. I want to

start off by calling out the moment that we're in, one

that we're seeing violence in many forms perpetrate our

communities. From police brutality to environmental

racism, it is the response -- it is the responsibility of

everyone, including every government agency, to step up

and address the structural inequality and the policies

that they have power over.

This moment is also one in which we're seeing the

call for community solutions more than ever come to the

mainstream. I am here carrying the message of members

before me that have been calling for zero emissions before

it was mainstream. These members and elders were looking

out for the generation ahead of them.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

166

Our communities are on the frontline of the

supply chain whose bodies, lungs, labor, and environment

make it possible for shelves to be stocked and packages to

be delivered are calling for CARB to accelerate your

targets for the heavy-duty Class 7 and 8 sector and pass

this rule.

We see thousands upon thousands of trucks enter

our communities every day. Even with the COVID-19 crisis,

operations and commuters did not stop moving here. Even

as we endured the second wave of COVID and the looming

insecurity of our economy, we know there's no better time

than now to invest in an industry that benefits both the

economy and more importantly our health.

Many of us in our community need to see the

stimulation earlier than later. Just last week, 40

million square feet of warehousing space was approved in

the City of Moreno Valley with and associated 12 to 14

thousand truck trips.

We need this rule to reflect the growth in the

Inland Empire, the growth our friends are seeing in the

Port of Oakland, Long Beach, the Central Valley, the

central coast.

The next couple of years of adoption are

essential to ensuring that we're seeing these trucks

replace the ones we have running through our neighborhoods


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

167

today. We ask this rule reflect that real burden we see

sooner than later.

I'll end by stating our strong approval of CARB's

direction to a full zero-emission future and a strong

reporting requirement. We're happy to be involved in such

a monumental moment of transition for our communities.


Our next speaker is David Wooley. David, I have


begin our testimony.

MR. WOOLEY: Good morning. My name is David

Wooley. I'm the Director of the Environmental Center at

the Goldman School of Public Policy in UC Berkeley, and I

wanted to join you today to strongly support the Clean

Truck Rule. I'm especially pleased to see the

strengthening of the rule that the staff and the Board has

proposed to move forward on today. I come to this with an

experience over the past few years with the AB 617

implementation in West Oakland.

I've seen what can happen to communities that

suffer disproportionate pollute -- exposure to diesel

particulate emissions. And this -- this rule recognizes

that -- that sources of diesel emission also co-emit

greenhouse gases and that we can act on both with this

rule.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

168

I'm especially pleased to see that the decision

reflects the recent reductions in lithium-ion battery

costs, which will help make this overall rule quite

economically attractive and feasible to implement.



Our next speaker is Sila Kiliccote. I have

activated your microphone and you can unmute yourself.

MS. KILICCOTE: Hi. Can you hear me?


MS. KILICCOTE: Great. My name is Sila

Kiliccote. I'm the CEO of eIQ Mobility. eIQ Mobility is

a fleet electrification solution provider located in

Oakland, California. One of our products is a software

platform called EValuate, which we use to assist fleets in

determining which of their vehicles are technically and

economically feasible to replace with electric vehicles.

In working with fleets, we found that they have

many options for replacing their care with electric cars

and fewer options for replacing their trucks with electric

trucks. California has been a leader in facilitating the

adoption of electric trucks and buses with programs like

Low Carbon Fuel Standard, HVIP, and the Carl Moyer

Program, but we need to further reduce greenhouse gas

emissions and curb tailpipe emissions from diesel trucks,


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

169

especially in disadvantaged communities. A strong ACT

Rule will enable us to do this by accelerating the

transition to electric trucks.

We were glad to see some of the ways in which the

ACT Rule would strengthen the current proposal, extending

the rule to 2035, and roughly doubling the sales

requirements for covered medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.

As it now stands, the proposed ACT rule will help

put roughly a quarter million clean trucks on California's

roads by 2035 and will save the trucking industry nearly

$6 billion through 2040, according to CARB's cost and

benefit analysis.

In closing, we encourage the Board to adopt the

proposed ACT Rule and we hope the Board will continue to

make California a climate and clean transportation leader

by taking further complementary actions, such as

accelerating the adoption of the pending Clean Fuel --

Clean Fleets Rule, and passing a resolution to establish a

target date for the -- for when the State can achieve

hundred percent zero-emission truck fleets.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is the Paul Cort. Paul, I've

activated your microphone, if you'd like to unmute

yourself and begin.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

170

MR. CORT: Thank you, yes. This is Paul Cort

with Earthjustice. And I'm just very happy to join you

all today to urge you to approve this groundbreaking rule.

It has been significantly improved as a result of your

direction last December, and we commend staff for their

work to get here and just really appreciate working with

all of you.

I just want to highlight that none of the

concerns that have been raised to date is a reason to

delay or weaken the rule before you. Yes, we need to have

buyers for these trucks. And the record shows that the

market is there, even building on Ikea's comments right

before me. And we also agree the upcoming fleet rules

will be important to ensuring these trucks are being

deployed where they are needed. Yes, we need to be

building out the infrastructure to support this new

transportation vision.

There are multiple efforts underway that you've

already heard about, and this rule will provide critical

targets for utility and related planning efforts.

And yes, we need to make sure that the combustion

trucks that are left on the road continue to get cleaner,

but that does not mean undermining these zero-emission

mandates by allowing credit for polluting natural gas

trucks that do nothing to advance zero-emission


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

171

technology.

It means embracing technology forcing standards

in the upcoming Omnibus Truck Rule. This is not a case of

the chicken or the egg. We need the chicken and the egg.

We need to take this important first step today and then

move on to the other pieces needed to support and

accelerate the wholesale transformation to zero emissions

that's required to finally achieve clean air for everyone.

Thank you and enjoy your lunch.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Thank you. So we will now

take our 30-minute lunch break. I will remind all Board

members and staff to please stay on the Zoom call and

please mute yourself and turn off your videos. To members

of the audience, I request that you please stay on the

Zoom as well. And if you have your hand raised, please do

not lower your hand, because that will put you -- excuse

me, that will put you behind the cutoff line.

So we will be -- we will reassemble at 1:00 p.m.

At that time, the next three speakers will be Christopher

Canon, a phone number ending in 457, and Adam Harper.

Apologies that we cut you off right before lunch, but

please be back at 1:00, so we can begin the rest of the

public testimony.

So, yep, thank you and enjoy your lunch.

(Off record: 12:31 p.m.)


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

172

(Thereupon a lunch break was taken.)


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

173

A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N

(On record: 1:02 p.m.)

CHAIR NICHOLS: All right. Well, then let's

resume where we left off. We'll resume the hearing now

and the Clerk will call the next few witnesses, please.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Yes. Thank you, Madam

Chair. Our next three witnesses are Christopher Canon,

Adam Harper, and Janet Whittick.

Christopher, I have activated your microphone.

If you'd like to unmute yourself and begin.

MR. CANNON: Thank you. And good after -- good

afternoon, CARB Board members and staff. My name is Chris

Canon. I'm the Chief Sustainability Officer at the Port

of Los Angeles. We want to register our support for

staff's proposed Advanced Clean Truck Rule.

Heavy-duty zero-emission truck technology is

still in its development phase. So we support the idea of

getting more trucks out on the road, because this will

help advance zero-emission technology and we believe it

will begin to establish a secondary market for previously

owned zero-emission trucks that can be accessed by drayage

operators.

Drayage operators typically purchase lower cost

trucks in this secondary market, so we believe this rule

going into effect when it does can help them. We have set


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

174

a goal of 100 percent zero-emission drayage truck

operations by 2035 for the ports of Los Angeles and Long

Beach. And we think having more zero-emission trucks

operating across the state will help us with our goal.

So we want to thank you for the opportunity to

speak and this concludes my remarks.


Our next speaker is Adam Harper. Adam, I have

activated your microphone. Please unmute yourself and you

can begin your comments.

MR. HARPER: Board Members, Adam Harper,

California Construction Industrial Materials Association.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to

comment today. I spoke before you in December. What I'd

like to focus today on is the fleet -- is the reporting

date. And we appreciate the changes which the Board

encouraged in the fleet reporting. We'd like the Board to

think about construction fleets and the difference between

construction fleets and delivery fleets necessitated

largely around the debate of COVID-19.

We appreciate that your staff has went back and

allowed people to report data from 2019, but we want to

thank you -- want you to think about, you know, the 2b

truck that may be operating as either a mechanics truck or

a crew truck that is routing employees around and to job


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

175

sites and may even between job sites on the same day

potentially.

There really isn't a system in place that tracks

that data. And in COVID-19 terms in this current year,

we're not in a normal marketplace. Now, our industry will

obviously report if you ask in April of next year, but you

need to understand that the high quality data that, you

know, Mr. Kitowski said earlier was critical to doing

future fleet rules is not likely to be represented in the

data set that is submitted as a result by, you know, at

least several of our member fleets in the construction

sector as a result.

So we wanted to call that to the Board's

attention. We're not sure exactly how to resolve it,

because the tragedy that is COVID-19 may not be solved

next year, but we wanted to ask the Board to strongly

consider methods of putting off the reporting dates

certainly for construction fleets.

But you may also want to consider it for some

freight fleets, because we have already heard that the

freight delivery market was changed. So thank you for

your consideration.


Our next commenter is Janet Whittick. After

Janick -- Janet, it will be Jimmy O'Dea, Patricio


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

176

Portillo, and Gabriela Mendez.

Janet, I have activated your microphone. You can

unmute yourself and begin your testimony.

MS. WHITTICK: Perfect. Thank you, Ryan.

Good afternoon. This is Janet Whittick of the

California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance.

We've submitted detailed comments on large entity

reporting and hope that the Board will review those

comments, especially if they relate to fair implementation

and enforcement. But I'm not going to repeat those points

now in respect of your time.

Instead, we want to embrace three new issues.

First, we would like to better understand that interplay

between ACT and the Low-NOx Omnibus Rule. While these are

separate but parallel proceedings, they target the same

medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.

And we feel that OEMs and fleets need to better

understand how the compliance requirements interact and

that they will make business and investment decisions

accordingly.

Second, and also related to low-NOx vehicles, we

support the many groups today asking the Board to consider

partial credits for ultra low-NOx trucks that use

renewable natural gas, especially for Class 7 and 8

vehicles that really do need near-term clean air options.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

177

Finally, we would like to better understand the

use of 15-and 30-day changes for major regulations subject

to two hearings. In both ACT and later on today the At

Berth Rule, staff have made significant changes after the

initial hearing and at the direction of the Board.

However, the analyses that these changes has not

been as rigorous as it was for the initial proposals and

even with a 30-day comment period, time to interact with

staff has been greatly compressed. With the APA clock

ticking and pressure to avoid restarting any rulemaking,

our concern is that the process could discourage

legitimate and valuable course corrections, even those

that have been directed by the Board.

So thank for your time today.


Our next speaker is Jimmy. I have activated your

microphone. Please unmute yourself and begin.

MR. O'DEA: Good afternoon, Chair Nichols,

members of the Board. My name is Jimmy O'Dea. I'm a

Senor Analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists. I

first want to send my appreciation to the many community

members that have spoken up in support of the ACT today.

UCS, we strongly support today's proposal and we thank the

Board for its calls to strengthen the original draft back

in December.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

178

We also thank staff for overseeing a really

robust public process and the supporting analyses over the

last three and a half years of this policy's development.

This standard will be the biggest step to date on electric

trucks, but it's also a reasonable and achievable step.

It will take the industry from one of press

releases and pilot projects to one of large scale

production. But the numbers of electric trucks this

policy will achieve also means it cannot be our last step.

UCS estimates this proposal will result in the

sale of 300,000 electric trucks by 2035, or 15 percent of

the 1.9 million trucks expected to be on the road in

California then, leaving 85 percent of the trucks left

with combustion engines, unless other actions are taken.

So we support the Board in setting targets and

committing to additional policies to transition that

remaining 85 percent to zero-emission technologies.

Finally, we urge the Board to keep this policy focused on

zero-emission technologies, including natural gas that

would harm the goal of this policy to accelerate truck

electrification.

And we also urge the Board to not include any

contingencies around implementation of this policy that

would send mixed market signals about California's

commitment to zero-emission trucks.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

179

Thank you.


speaker is Patricio. I have activated your microphone.

You could begin

MR. PORTILLO: Can you hear me?


MR. PORTILLO: Great. Thank you, ARB staff and

the Board for your work on this important role. My name

is Patricio Portillo and I'm a transportation analyst at

the Natural Resources Defense Council.

This modified proposal is a big step in the right

direction. We know the rule could have gone further, but

this is a start to achieving the transformation needed and

I strongly urge the Board to adopt staff's proposal and

resolution language.

However, last-minute changes to definitions that

invite fossil fuels into this rule are unacceptable.

Chair Nichols, you characterized this perfectly. It would

completely undermine the intent of this rule, which is to

create a zero emission, zero tailpipe truck market, and

jeopardizes California's ability to meet its climate and

clean air objectives.

The appropriate venue to discuss combustion

technology is the Low-NOx Rule, which is a vital

complementary policy along with the Clean Fleet Rule to


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

180

holistically tackle truck emissions. The resolution that

was introduced is also vital. However, the everywhere

feasible caveat should be removed. CARB has always had

and will always have this discretion. It does not need to

be expressly said. This caveat leaves open too much room

for interpretation and confusion.

Our coalition examined infrastructure needs with

actions underway within the state. The bottom line,

utility investments, existing programs, and a trained

workforce are all available to address infrastructure

requirements. As we heard from GO-Biz this morning,

challenges remain, but they are manageable challenges.

This zero-emission truck market this rule will

help foster is a tremendous economic engine, creating

millions of job and billions of dollars in savings. But

as Derrick Robinson and others mentioned earlier, we just

ensure the jobs created are high quality, and the truck

driver misclassification is addressed.

The Advanced Clean Truck Rule is State leadership

at its best, demonstrating how to protect public health,

the environment, and grow the economy. States are the

frontline of the transition to a clean technology future.

NRDC looks forward to partnering with you to make sure we

transition to zero polluting future, one that is truly

more equitable, as well as supportive of good job. Let's


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

181

start that today with your yes vote.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is Gabriela Mendez. After

Gabriela, we have Brittany Caplin, Michael Geller, and

Janet Dietzkamei.

Gabriela, I have activated your microphone. You


MS. MENDEZ: Okay. There we go. Can you guys

hear me?


MS. MENDEZ: Okay. Perfect.

Good afternoon, members of the Board. My name is

Gabriela Mendez. I'm an organizer with the Center for

Community Action Environmental Justice. And I live in the

community of the Inland region. We're about an hour south

of the L.A. ports.

I support this rule, because as a member of the

community, I can attest to the thousands of trucks that

pass behind our homes every day. These trucks have

massive impacts on our community's health and our land.

There are so many communities who are susceptible to poor

air quality such as the special needs community,

communities of color, and of specific socioeconomic

status.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

182

We need to make sure that everyone has the human

right to breathe clean air. The is a life or death

matter. And as I appreciate the Board taking this

incredible initiative, I still urge you to push for the

highest percentage possible for zero-emission trucks, more

specifically heavy-duty Class 7/8 tractors.

We need to ditch diesel and gas trucks as soon as

possible. And I just want to say that we cannot prevent

another virus outbreak or a natural disaster, but we can

make sure that all folks are better prepared to take on

something like that by starting with public health, right?

If we are already have folks who have existing respiratory

illnesses, they become more vulnerable to viruses or

natural disasters. So I just want to make sure that's a

priority.

And then also, I just want to tell you guys,

right, like, we're counting on you, the children of the

Inland region are counting on you guys. And the whole

state of California is counting on you guys to pass this.

It's something that we need so urgent. I cannot say how

many folks. I mean, I don't want to even right start

talking about how many folks I know that have cancer that

live along the freeway.

And, you know, one is too many already, so I

highly urge you to pass this and the highest percentage


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

183

possible, of course. Thank you so much.


Our next speaker is Brittany Caplin.

Brittany, I have activated your microphone. You

can begin.

MS. CAPLIN: Good afternoon, Chair Nichols and

members of the Board. Thank you for the opportunity to

comment on the proposed Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation.

My name is Brittany Caplin and I am the Director of

Government Relations at Proterra. Proterra is a leader in

the design and manufacture of heavy-duty electric transit

vehicles and EV technology solutions for commercial

applications. We have manufacturing facilities in

Northern California, Southern California, and South

Carolina.

Through our Proterra Powered Program, Proterra

has formed partnerships with world class OEMs to introduce

100 percent battery electric vehicles in a range of

vehicle categories, including electric school buses,

electric Motor Coach buses, and our recently announced

collaboration to develop a new all-electric delivery truck

chassis.

Proterra has a long and successful track record

of advancing zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicle

technology and meeting the demand Of fleets transitioning


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

184

from conventional diesel fuel to electric vehicles. Our

electric transit vehicles have been proven on the road

with more than 12 million miles of service across North

America. And we use this same battery technology to

electrify our partner vehicles.

Now is the time to adopt the ACT. We are in an

exciting phase of vehicle electrification with near-term

electrification opportunities for a wide range of

commercial vehicles and trucks already available. The

industry has also continued to make strides in battery

technology to improve range, reliability, and cost.

The ACT will build upon the State's leadership

and previous efforts to achieve transportation

electrification and reach our climate and greenhouse gas

reduction goals additionally, California has an

opportunity to continue to be a global leader in EV

manufacturing and passing the ACT Regulation now is a

critical step forward that will send clear market signals

to enable the planning and investment needed to further

development and scale zero-emission truck market in this

State.

Further, as job creation emerges as a top issue,

growing the EV industry --

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Sorry, your time is up.

MS. CAPLIN: -- represents a large opportunity.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

185

Thank you so much for your time and we urge you

to pass the ACT.


Our next speaker is Michael Geller. Michael,

I've activated your microphone. You can begin.

MR. GELLER: Good afternoon, Chair Nichols and

members of the Board. My name is Michael Geller, Deputy

Director of the Manufacturers of Emission Controls

Association. MECA members provide the technology

solutions that enable heavy-duty on-road vehicles to be as

clean as possible, including battery and fuel cell

materials, as well as various components found in hybrid

and all-electric commercial vehicles.

Last December, we provided suggestions that we

believe will strengthen this proposal by enhancing

technology options that can be implemented in applications

that are more challenging to electrify. We share CARB's

ambition to transition the heavy-duty fleet to net zero

tailpipe emissions and we are making investments towards

that goal.

Based on the experience with the passenger car

ZEV program, the technology penetration targets in this

proposal are very aggressive. The heavy-duty sector is

even more challenging for several reasons, including the

need for targeted infrastructure upgrades for fleet


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

186

charging. Industry investment does not respond well to

regulatory uncertainty stemming from the perception that

targets may be revised in the future. Therefore, we

recommend the inclusion of multiple compliance pathways

toward the objective of net zero tailpipe emissions.

In those applications with near-term challenges

to fully electrify, hybrid electric trucks can offer

significant emission benefits. In addition to plug-in

hybrids, we believe partial credit for HEVs that meet the

phase two GHG standards early would provide a parallel

path for faster CO2 reduction.

Another way to continue to accelerate CO2

reductions from the non-electric portion of the fleet is

to incentivize the use of low carbon fuels in ultra

low-NOx trucks. CARB could consider complimentary truck

and fuel purchase incentives when a low trucks -- low-NOx

truck is sold and operated on net zero carbon fuels and

build this into ACT to help attain climate targets.

Finally, as the fully electric truck market

matures, we support establishing and strengthening

performance standards for these vehicles and components

through zero-emission powertrain certification in order to

drive continual improvement and innovation in clean

mobility.

To conclude, MECA would like to thank CARB for


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

187

your leadership to transition the transportation sector.

We believe that parallel technology approaches would not

subtract from, but rather strengthen the ACT.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is Janet Dietzkamei. After

Janet, we have Morgan Caswell, Fe Koons, and Cristel

Gonzalez.

So Janet, I have activated your microphone. You


MS. DIETZKAMEI: Good afternoon, Chairman --

Chair Nichols, members of the Board, and staff. I am

Janet Dietzkamei and I have asthma. I -- we recently

moved -- 16 years ago we moved to Fresno and three years

after that, I had my first asthma attack. When we moved

here, I had no idea this is the most -- Fresno city was

the most polluted area in the San Joaquin Valley in the

United States.

Since we've moved here, recently a freeway was

built near our home. More recently, a business park was

built near our home, which brings in large trucks for the

businesses that are growingly being -- are present in the

business park. There will be a lot more trucks coming,

because there are a lot more businesses being built.

I absolutely urge adoption of this modified ACT


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

188

Rule. It is so important to those of us who have asthma

and those of us who live in areas with concentrated mobile

sources.

The -- I want to thank the Board, the staff, the

advocates, the public, all of the people who have put so

much time and effort into this rule. I want to recognize

the presentation of Paul Miller. He had -- did an

outstanding job of illustrating the need for this ACT

Rule.

this.

I thank you for your attention. Please pass

Thank you.


Our next speaker is Morgan Caswell. Morgan, I've


begin, please.

Morgan, are you there? I see you have your

microphone unmuted, but I can't hear you.

Okay. Morgan, our call-in number is on screen

with access code. If you can call in, I'll call you a

little bit later, if that's okay.

So our next speaker is Cristel Gonzalez. And

after Cristel, we have Jeff Pickles, Veronica Pardo, and

Tiffany Roberts.

Cristel, I have activated your microphone. If

you can unmute yourself, you can begin.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

189

MS. GONZALEZ: Hello. My name is Cristel. I'm

in seventh grade. I'm a youth leader with CAUSE from

Oxnard. And we support the ACT Rule.

The California Air Resources Board is proposing

manufacturers to build more electric trucks. It's

important to me, because simple things like ordering

online is no big deal for some people. But for us that

live in communities where those items are shipped in or

out, the air pollution gets worse with all these diesel

trucks coming in and out of our neighborhood --

neighborhoods. We need more electric trucks, so that my

neighborhood can breathe.

Thank you.


Next up, we have Jeff Pickles. Jeff, I have


begin.

MR. PICKLES: Can you hear me now?


MR. PICKLES: I'm Jeff Pickles with Green Grid,

Inc. I support the ACT Rule. Thank you, Mary Nichols for

reminding us that zero-emission electric trucks can be

battery or hydrogen fuel cell. Appreciate that.

Thank you again to all the speakers so far.

mean, I can hear the heartfelt passion and desire for


I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

190

zero-emissions trucks, and I share that with everyone.

I request that CARB strongly include renewable

hydrogen production and hydrogen fueling stations in

parallel efforts to support that ACT Rule. Please allow

me to paint a big picture for your consideration by

discussing a few points about hydrogen, if I can do that

in less than a minute.

We have performed many techno-economic analysis

of zero-emission solutions. And the results show that, in

general, hydrogen has a lower lifetime cost and better

economics for the end-user than batteries. This is due to

the inherent longer lifetime of hydrogen storage tanks and

fuel cells compared to batteries, as well as the systems

having better energy density, cargo capacity, and the fast

filling nature of hydrogen.

Investments are -- and infrastructure are needed

for either battery or hydrogen. In the case of battery,

those investments may be the burden of our electric

utilities, which will be paid by ratepayers, and it may

not meet our greenhouse gas cost targets, expectations, or

schedule. Investments in hydrogen avoid the new electric

transmission distribution and interconnection and storage

investments and utilities also need large renewable

storage. So there's kind of an overlap of these needs.

Vehicles that use renewable hydrogen can be


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

191

verified to use a hundred percent renewable energy in

zero-emissions energy, but it's very difficult to verify

the content of battery charging.

Electric utilities also have zero-emission

targets and they need gigawatt hours of renewable storage,

which is very challenging with batteries, considering the

lifetime costs and potential for thermal runaway which is

a fire risk.

So leading countries around the world are all

enacting national renewable --

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Excuse me.

MR. PICKLES: -- hydrogen programs, including

directly coupled renewable generation --

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Your time has concluded.

MR. PICKLES: -- hydrogen production storage and

generation. And so we think that California is a great

market to --


MR. PICKLES: -- do that as well.

Thank you.


Before we move on to Veronica, I want to try

Morgan Caswell one more time. Morgan, I have activated

your microphone. If you are there, you can unmute

yourself and begin.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

192

MS. CASWELL: Can you hear me?


MR. CASWELL: Hello?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Yep, we can.

Can you not hear me?

That's odd. Morgan, if you're there, you can

start speaking.

Okay. So, Morgan -- okay. So, Morgan, if you

can't hear me -- if you can hear me, you can use the

call-in number or dial -- and once you use the call-in

number and access code, you can dial star nine to raise

your hand. I'm not sure what the problem is there.

Hopefully, we can figure that out.

So for now, we'll move on to our next speaker,

Veronica Pardo. Veronica, I have activated your

microphone. You can unmute yourself and begin.

MS. PARDO: Thank you. This is Veronica Pardo

with the Resource Recovery Coalition of California. Our

association is comprised of both national and California-

based small- to mid-sized independent solid waste and

recycling companies. Committed to California's

environmental goals, our members have a long history of

innovation. Among the first to recycle, compost, and

produce renewable energy from organics in the state, these

businesses have worked alongside their cities and counties


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

193

to surpass California's mandated waste diversion goals.

As essential service providers during the

COVID-19 emergency, we continue to provide essential

services to protect health and safety for our communities,

but not without considerable financial impacts.

Shelter-in-place orders and non-essential

business closures over the last three months have caused

immediate and dramatic change in waste collection services

and material volumes. And as of May 1, 2020, our members

were projecting an 18 percent drop in gross revenue due to

COVID-19 impacts.

While we see business starting to improve, we do

anticipate the full financial impact of COVID-19 emergency

won't be realized for several months. And with California

facing a $54 billion State deficit and cities anticipating

a $7 billion general revenue shortfall, we need to address

California's recovery and encourage infrastructure

development that will stimulate the local economy and

creating green jobs, and improve community resiliency.

CalRecycle SB 1383 regulations, which begin

January 1, 2022, require organic waste recycling across

California and will create tens of thousands of jobs

through 2030. And these regulations are a critical

element of CARB's Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy

to reduce methane emissions.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

194

We see this as an incredible opportunity to close

the loop on California's organics and displace fossil

fuels with in-state RNG. This is why we strongly

supported the ACT definition to include near zero-emission

vehicle to include the 0.0 gram low-NOx standard when

coupled with in-state RNG.

We look forward to discussing how the Omnibus

Rule might serve as a counterbalance to our concerns and

help support advanced organics management infrastructure.

And we'll be providing a white paper for staff and Board

members to outline SB 1383 organic infrastructure

expectations.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is Tiffany Roberts. After

Tiffany, we have Paola Dela Cruz-Perez, Kevin Maggay, and

Taylor Thoma.

So Tiffany, I have activated your microphone.


MS. ROBERTS: Thank you, Ryan. And good

afternoon Madam Chair and Board members. This is Tiffany

Roberts, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs for Western

States Petroleum Association. Let me start by saying that

we absolutely agree that achieving emission reductions in

communities around the State must be a priority.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

195

Immediate progress on this front requires us to

keep all technologies on the table to achieve our mutual

goals. That means including in this rule consideration of

technologies that we have today that can reduce emissions

much more quickly, things like lower-emission diesel,

renewable diesel, biodiesel, natural gas hybrid

powertrains, and especially renewable natural gas vehicles

can deliver and achieve significant reductions in both air

quality emissions and greenhouse gases emissions today,

often at costs lower than options proposed in this

regulation.

But the proposed regulation does seem to

essentially discount the potential contribution of the

technologies and disregards the immediate benefits of

emission reductions that could be achieved today, and

instead steers the State into a different direction.

Even though there's been a nod to the Low-NOx

Omnibus Rule, separating out near-zero technologies from

the Advanced Clean Truck Rule, not only devalues the

potential contribution that other technologies could bring

to the table, it undermines the original process which

seemed to be trying to find a comprehensive solution.

Now, what you have before you is much more of a fragmented

and siloed process that should be comprehensive. And this

fragmentation really does end up denying both you as the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

196

board and the public the chance to compare across

different technologies and pick the best pathway.

All technologies and available pathways should be

considered together comprehensively in order to find the

best path forward. So we would ask you not to choose to

forego emissions -- early emission reductions and instead

move to help communities sooner.

Thank you.


Next up, we have Paola. I have activated your

microphone. You can unmute yourself and begin your

testimony.

MS. DELA CRUZ-PEREZ: Buenas tardes. My name is

Paola Dela Cruz-Perez. And I'm calling from the City of

Compton. As a member of East Yard Communities for

Environmental Justice, I'm here to urge you for a stronger

ACT Rule. I live in one of the quote/unquote

disadvantaged communities mentioned in your presentation

earlier. Every day I see cargo trucks by the 91 freeway,

Wilmington Avenue Ramp, which some of you may know is a

central freeway entrance/exit near warehouses. I also see

them on Alameda Avenue as they head to and from downtown

Los Angeles.

While white communities contribute more to air

pollution, the truth is that we breathe the toxic air.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

197

And the numbers are clear, COVID-19 is disproportionately

killing black, indigenous, and brown people because of

structural and environmental racism. For too long

agencies and policies have allowed high levels of

pollution to concentrate in our neighborhoods.

This should merely be a motivation for you to

strengthen and approve the ACT Rule, not succumb to

external pressures and halt this effort. Here is our

request to you. We need CARB to increase the sale

percentage for Class 7 to 8 trucks, the ones I see in my

hood.

To understand why we are requesting this, one

needs to understand the root causes of pollution, and

frankly live in what many call the quote/unquote

disadvantaged community. Why do we past, current, and

future generations of communities of color have to live

with chronic illnesses caused by air pollution?

Why do our bodies have to bear the

disproportionate costs of pollution. While the ACT Rule

is a place to start, we urge you to pass a policy that has

meaningful impact and begins to address environmental

racism. Do what is right. Thank you.


Our next speaker is Kevin. I have unmuted your



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

198

Kevin Maggay, are you there?

MR. MAGGAY: Sorry. Can you hear now?


MR. MAGGAY: Thank you. Good afternoon, Board

members, Kevin Maggay with SoCalGas. We support the ACT

and we would also like to see the definition change that's

been mentioned already. We would like the definition of

near zero trucks to include the low NOx 0.02 gram engine,

which was used by CARB in the 2016 Mobile Source Strategy,

and that the corresponding changes to the credit provision

be made to make them eligible for partial credits.

The Class 7 and 8 trucks are going to be the most

difficult ones to electrify, which I assume is why staff

included a multiplier for all these classes. They're just

not widely available in the near term. So in the near

term, consumers are going to have to choose between a

conventional 0.2 dram engine or technology that's not

quite there yet.

And I think to them, the choice would be petty

easy. Giving a partial credit for Class 7 and 8, even if

just for a limited time would give consumers another

choice to upgrade, they could upgrade to a technology

that's 90 cleaner than they would have -- what they would

have gotten otherwise.

I don't think that adding near-zero trucks


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

199

prevents the penetration of zero emission trucks. Staff

predicts that zero-emission trucks will be cheaper

mid-decade. And when that happens, people will flock to

it and it will also provide time for infrastructure

build-out, and ironing out the technology.

I think making that proposed change, all it does,

it merely provides emission reductions until that time --

until it comes to fruition.

We think that ACT can be effective and it's a

very, very much needed long-term strategy. But without a

change like this, I'm concerned that the ACT does very

little to address near-term air quality and does very

little to address public health impacts that are being

suffered today.

Thank you.


Before we move on to Taylor, we have Morgan, I

think, on the phone. Morgan, are you there?

MS. CASWELL: Great. Can you hear me?


MS. CASWELL: Great. Sorry about that. Just as

an FYI, the phone number that's on the screen, the

response that I got from it was that it was invalid. So I

went to the website to get the correct phone number and ID

for the meeting.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

200

Good afternoon, Board -- CARB Board members and

Chair Mary Nichols, thank you for this opportunity to

comment on the proposed Advanced Clean Truck Rule. My

name is Morgan Caswell, and I am the manager of Air

Quality Practices for the Port of Long Beach. We believe

this proposed rule will help to increase the availability

of heavy-duty Class 7 and 8 zero-emissions trucks in the

South Coast Air Basin and statewide.

Availability of these trucks will be essential

for the State to achieve their greenhouse gas reduction

goals and for the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to

achieve their zero-emissions goal for drayage trucks

serving the ports by 2035 as established in the San Pedro

Bay Clean Air Action Plan.

For these reasons, and to ensure public health

benefits for our communities, the Port of Long Beach is

supportive of the proposed rule. We look forward to

continued collaboration and coordination with CARB staff

on implementation efforts to reduce emissions from

heavy-duty trucks.

Thank you.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Thank you. Sorry. Forgot

to unmute myself.

Our next speaker is Taylor Thomas. After Taylor,

we have Leah Silverthorn, Neena Mohan, and Mirella


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

201

Dinez-Zaragoza.

Taylor, I have activated your microphone. You

can unmute --

MS. THOMAS: Hello.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Yep. Hello.

MS. THOMAS: Hi. My name is Taylor Thomas. I'm

from Long Beach in Southern California on the ancestral

homelands of the Tongva people. And I'm with East Yard

Communities for Environmental Justice.

And I think this rule takes on a different type

of significance for frontline communities, because we live

with these trucks every day. And I think back to the

years when I had to sit every day and watch drayage trucks

pass a few front of me -- a few feet in front of me,

excuse me. And I never could have conceived that those

trucks that I saw could one day be zero emissions.

And when I was 18 and I began attending Cal State

Long Beach, I had to catch the bus to school every morning

at this highly trafficked junction two blocks away from my

home. This bus stop is at the intersection of Pacific

Coast Highway and the on- and off-ramp to the 710 Freeway

in West Long Beach, and with these trucks coming and going

to the ports and the ICTF intermodal facility.

And that was the first time that I noticed that

other neighborhoods didn't have freeways behind their


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

202

homes. I didn't think twice when I showed up to class

wheezing, because I had asthma and I thought the flareups

that I experienced were just part of the deal.

So I would get on that bus to go to school on the

other side of town and watched as my city completely

changed from one end to the other.

And this is a common experience in frontline

communities across the state. The only difference between

then and now is that the bus stop has since moved down

half a block. Truck traffic has increased and we have now

a new Prologis warehouse about a mile away from that

intersection.

This rule is a huge step in beginning to address

the health inequities that are created by the goods

movement industry, but more can be done. And my ask to

the Board today is that you strengthen the sales targets

for heavy-duty trucks and pass the ACT Rule today. We

need zero emissions now. When we want to solve a problem,

we solve it. When we want to pretend to solve a problem,

we address a symptom of the problem while ignoring

solutions that get at the roots of that issue.

Our communities are suffering from pollution

burdens and a lack of access to sustainable jobs, and we

don't need or want Band-Aid false solutions like natural

gas trucks. We need regulation that move us into a


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

203

healthy and equitable future.

So again, please increase the targets for Class 7

and 8 and vote yes today. Thank you.


I apologize to everyone for the incorrect access

code. Are we ready to -- we'll put that -- the right one

up shortly.

Our next speaker is Leah Silverthorn. Leah, I

have activated your microphone. You can begin your

comment.

MS. SILVERTHORN: Good afternoon, Madam Chair and

members. Leah Silverthorn with the California Chamber of

Commerce. I want to start by thanking the Board for its

guidance at the December meeting as well as to staff for

implementing changes to the reporting aspect of the rule,

since the December meeting.

From Chamber's perspective, the reporting aspect

is great improved and it will streamline and simplify the

reporting requirement. However, the rule does still

require significant interpretation by the regulated

community and doesn't address enforcement penalties. So

we hope that if the Board does choose to adopt the

regulation today without the necessary fixes to language,

the resources will be dedicated to the technical support

that will be required to comply with this rule, which


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

204

applies immediately to businesses throughout California

that are already struggling to recover and keep their

workers safe.

I do want to point out one major issue that

remains in the reporting rule. Because of the revisions

to definitions, and I've outlined this in our comments,

the revised reporting rule would now apply to a company

that only owns light-duty vehicles, if they happen to have

one large truck or even just one large passenger pickup

truck. I don't think that was the intent of the Board or

the staff, so we're asking for additional clarity on

whether these light-duty companies would be covered.

In addition, we do support the request today to

adjust the definition of near zero to ensure more

immediate air quality improvements.

Finally, because this rule is a statewide

percentage mandate that does not ensure adoption in

disadvantage communities, as corresponding fleet rules are

developed over the next year, we do encourage ARB to

continue to work with its sister agencies in GO-Biz and

others to look at barriers to adoption and encourage

incentives and carrots for deployment, especially those

that can facilitate higher adoption in disadvantaged

communities to achieve the triple goals of reducing carbon

emissions, improving air quality, and encouraging job


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

205

growth in these disadvantaged communities.

Thanks for your time.

--o0o--


speaker is Neena. Neena, I have activated your


MS. MOHAN: Hello and thank you. My name is

Neena Mohan with the California Environmental Justice

Alliance, a statewide policy organization that's dedicated

to building the power of local environmental justice

organizations across the state.

I am here to share the concerns of many CEJA

members living in diesel death zones and areas of high

emissions exposure from freight movement and ask for the

adoption of the ACT Rule and a commitment from CARB to

adopt additional stricter subsequent standards that

protect public health.

We stand in solidarity with our directly impacted

members who live in port communities, near warehouses, and

next to high traffic freeways across the state.

Current life-threatening levels of freight

pollution require you to adopt the ACT Rule today. But

this rule does not go far enough to protect public health.

CARB must institutionalize, strengthen, and speed up

timelines and targets in subsequent rules for


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

206

electrification and adoption of zero-emissions vehicles to

meet the State's climate, health, and equity goals.

We owe it to disproportionately impacted

communities experiencing pollution now to be more

ambitious and accelerate heavy-duty sales targets. CARB

should also not permit or promote false solutions, such as

polluting natural gas powered trucks under implementation

of the ACT and related rules.

Additionally, attaching strong labor requirements

to these rules is critical. Research has shown increased

COVID comorbidity in communities facing high rates of air

pollution. The logistics industry has increased due to

eCommerce demands under COVID. And this related increase

in emissions necessitates strong mandates from the State

to rapidly electrify medium- and heavy-duty fleets,

especially for our communities living in goods movement

corridors.

CARB, you have an obligation to build a future in

which all Californians can live free from toxic pollution.

The ACT Rule is meaningful step forward in the right

direction, which will surely benefit the lives of

Californians, but there is still much more urgent work to

be done in order to protect public health.

We look forward to continuing to partner with you

on this. Thanks again for your time today.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

207


Our next speaker is Mirella Deniz-Zaragoza.

After Mirella, we have Stephanie -- Stephane Ly, Yesenia

G. and Ben Granholm.

Mirella, I have activated your microphone. You


MS. DENIZ-ZARAGOZA: Great. Can you hear me?


MS. DENIZ-ZARAGOZA: Okay. Good afternoon,

everyone. My name is Mirella Deniz-Zaragoza. And I'm

speaking on behalf of the Warehouse Worker Resource

Center. Thank you to Chair Nichols, Board members, and

CARB for your leadership and I ask you move forward with

the rule before the Board today as written. The Warehouse

Worker Resource Center is an organization dedicated to

improving working conditions for warehouse workers and

their families across Southern California. We are based

in the Inland Empire, a region dominated by logistics

trucking and warehousing.

We believe a strong Fleet Rule is critical to the

economic and physical health of our community as workers

and as residents who breathe the air and raise families in

communities impacted by air pollution. We know that both

pollution and climate change have the largest effects on

the most vulnerable poor and working class black and brown


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

208

people in places like the Inland Empire. People of color

disproportionately live in high density areas of

pollution, such as freeways and large manufacturing

warehousing facilities.

We believe that strong reporting and transparency

will allow for the rule to be enforceable and give us

clarity about its impacts and effectiveness. In addition,

we are especially concerned about the financial burden

that independent and misclassified drivers may face as

they will be handed the cost of the new equipment.

Drivers are one piece of a massive global system

controlled by shippers like Amazon and Walmart.

We believe that a reporting requirement will help

assess the roles of shippers and also the scale of

trucking companies involved. A robust rule to help us

understand the scale of the task at hand is key for

measurability and also for us to ensure that drivers are

not unduly burdened through this process.

Independent contractors make up a huge portion of

the truck out of compliance with clean air regulations in

California, forty percent of last year's with the Truck

and Bus Rule. Contractors make very little and can face

high financial costs and are highly exploited by their

employers. We as workers rights' advocates stand side by

side with community leaders, public health advocates, and


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

209

the environmental justice movement in support of a strong

Fleet Rule with strong reporting requirements.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is Stephanie. Stephanie, I have

activated your microphone. If you'd like to -- yep, you

can begin.

MS. LY: Good afternoon, Chair Nichols and CARB

Board. My name is Stephanie and I'm based in San Diego at

Transpower Meritor. We're a manufacturer of electric

powertrains for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. We've

received generous funding from CARB, CEC, air districts,

ports, and other agencies to perform proof of concept and

demonstrations of over 180 zero-emission trucks, equipment

and vehicles and we're not in the commercial deployment

stage.

This ACT rule, as well as other incentive

programs come at a really critical time in our

development. We have formed partnerships with

traditionally internal combustion engine manufacturers to

electrify their products. We strongly support the

adoption of the Advanced Clean Truck Rule.

The percentages outlined are aggressive and the

industry will need to ramp up in terms of infrastructure

and support. The ACT Rule would create high-quality


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

210

manufacturing and clean technology jobs, while also

securing California's economic leadership in the

zero-emission heavy-truck -- -duty truck market, with the

ability to actually export to other states and countries.

I would just urge the Board to really consider

incentives and other policies that would align with the

ACT Rule during this critical phase amidst the pandemic to

secure California's leadership and future.

Thank you so much.


Our next speaker is Yesenia. I have activated

your microphone. You can begin your comments.

MS. YESENIA G.: Oh, hi, can you hear me?


MS. YESENIA G.: Okay. Hi. Good morning, Board

Members. My name is Yesenia and I'm a youth leader

involved with CAUSE from the City of Oxnard, and I support

the ACT Rule. I'm here today to voice my opinion on

diesel trucks and the impact it has on communities like

mine. I would also like to speak about how we can support

truck drivers, since it is hard to maintain diesel trucks.

Coming from the City of Oxnard, I've noticed many people

have asthma. We are in the 90th percentile of asthma

rates in the state and have a higher chance of getting

asthma. Some of my family members have been affected by


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

211

the pollution and have gotten asthma because of the

pollution from power plants, pesticides factories,

factories, toxics waste, et cetera.

Growing up, I saw my younger sister connected to

oxygen tanks not being able to breathe properly. I would

ask my mom why she had to be connected and why was it so

hard to breathe. Was she born sick? Maybe she wasn't

strong enough. Maybe she didn't know how to breathe. It

wasn't just my sister. It was my father too. He would

cough and gasp. And from the noises he made, you can tell

it hurt.

All I see is an ongoing cycle, a cycle of

pollution and bad lungs. Our lungs are being

contaminated, but you don't want to listen. How long

until you hear us? Do you want to be affected? Let me

tell you, you are not going to be affected. Why? You

live in a neighborhood where diesel trucks wouldn't even

dare to drive down. But why is this issue so important to

me and my family? Because not only does it affect my

family, but it affects countless others. Will my kids

have asthma or worse cancer? Is this just going to be an

ongoing cycle of bad lungs plus bad air in the diesel

trucks?

And the diesel trucks are contributing to these

health issues. In fact, diesel emission has been proven


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

212

to be linked to cancer. They cause a lot of pollution and

they're always causing traffic, which increases more time

cars are on doing nothing, and that causes more pollution,

even if it's just for a second.

Most of the drivers are not provided with health

care -- health care rights that should be given to the

workers. Companies are not giving the rights that should

be guaranteed to the drivers. And also, the companies are

not taking care of the trucks, putting that burden on

drivers. Most drivers have to take the money to maintain

the cars out of their pockets.

This is why I'm here to stop the pollution in my

city and to help the truck drivers get their rights. I

urge you to pass this policy for clean trucks --

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Your time is up.

MS. YESENIA G.: -- and strengthening reporting

requirements. Thank you for your time.


Our next speaker is Ben Granholm. After Ben, we

have Beverly DesChaux, David You, and Jennifer Martinez.

Ben, I have activated your microphone. You can


Ben, are you there?

Okay. We'll move on to Beverly. Beverly, I've I



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

213

MS. DESCHAUX: Hi. My name is Beverly DesChaux.

I'm the president of Electric Auto Association of the

Central Coast. We have over 80 chapters across the U.S.

And we're the longest EV group that we know of over 50

years. The engineers putting vehicles on the moon said if

we're doing it there, why shouldn't we do it on Earth.

So 40 -- we know that 45 percent of California's

emissions are coming from vehicles. And even greater than

that, in our Central Coast Region, the five counties that

are included in the Monterey Bay community power region,

we have 82 percent emissions coming from vehicles. So I

strongly support -- we strongly support this ACT.

However, we are informed by our electrical

engineers who are very forward-thinking from Silicon

Valley about the dangers of going down the road of the

hydrogen fuel cell. They are currently all produced by

fossil fuel. We believe that it is the fossil fuels way

of keeping in the game by going hydrogen, and they are

actually half the efficiency of batteries. Batteries are

increasing in their efficiency and reducing in their cost.

We also are plugging into our Community Choice

Electricity, which is 88 percent carbon free, twenty-one

community choice aggregators in the State of California

now whose goal was to reduce our emissions and we have

succeeded with 88 percent. So as we're plugging in, we're


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

214

not -- we're also getting our source from carbon free,

whereas, hydrogen is not.

And so just looking at the tailpipe is not

enough. Where it's produced needs to be considered as

well. Norway has 80 electric ferries and all of their

inland flights are by electric also.

Thank you.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Thank you. Before we move

on to David, I want to try Ben one more time. Ben

Granholm, are you there?

MR. GRANHOLM: Yes. Can you hear me?


MR. GRANHOLM: Thank you so much. And my

apologies on that. I'm having some Internet connectivity

issues.

My name is Ben Granholm. I'm with the Western

Propane Gas Association. First off, thank you for the

opportunity to provide comment today. WPGA respectfully

requests in addition to the definition of near

zero-emission vehicle to include the currently certified

low NOx 0.02 gram engine and corresponding changes to the

NZEV credit provisions, such that near-term air quality

benefits are incentivized in this rulemaking.

WPGA, along with many others, are strong

supporters of clean energy and believe that low-NOx


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

215

heavy-duty trucks using renewable fuels will be a vital

piece to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the

transportation sector, especially over the near term,

where heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles continue to remain

largely unavailable.

Renewable fuels, such as renewable propane,

provide a great opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions today without compromising power. Renewable

propane is derived from sustainable sources, like beef

tallow or vegetable oil The use of renewable propane, for

example, and near zero propane trucks significantly

reduces carbon emissions and NOx emissions that remain to

be an important focus in many areas of California.

The need for energy diversity remains vital in

all sectors of our transportation network. WPGA strongly

encourages the Board to think holistically on how to best

invest and regulate clean technologies to ensure the most

significant greenhouse gas reduction impact, and that the

ACT Rule should focus on the emissions reductions goals,

based on a complete energy lifecycle basis.

WPGA appreciates your work in this area and hopes

that the Board will include low-NOx truck in the

definition of zero-emission vehicle. Without these

requested changes, we fail to see how this regulation

achieves near-term air quality and public health benefits.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

216

We look forward to continuing to work with you as the

State strives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through

comprehensive clean energy solutions.

Thank you.


Our next comment is David Yow. David, I have


begin.

MR. YOW: Good afternoon, Chair Nichols and Board

members. Thank you. David Yow with the Port of San

Diego. Thanks -- thanks to you all for CARB's hard work

developing the proposed regulation and we're thankful for

the transparency you've provided along the way. The Port

of San Diego supports the State's vision to reduce

emissions of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases from

mobile sources.

Requiring a certain percentage of sales to be

zero emission is really, really helpful to advance the

technology, reduce costs, and obviously make those trucks

much more competitive economically.

Our port established a Clean Air Plan to reduce

emissions from the maritime sector. And we -- we were one

of the first ports in the nation, I think, to adopt a

Climate Action Plan for GHG reductions. So we've seen

those emissions decrease, just like the state has.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

217

Mobile sources, however, are one of the largest

sources of emissions in the inventory and we need help to

achieve further reductions that we see.

The good thing is technology is advancing quickly

and we're updating our plan to help with that. And these

advancements that we're discussing today are going to be

part of that. We have been able to make progress so far

thanks to grant funding. So we want to thank you for that

first.

Just a few lessons learned. Electricity rates

are higher in San Diego than any part of the state. So

when we look at vessels at-berth, cargo equipment

vehicles, those higher rates are going to impact the cost

of electrifying the freight supply chain in our region.

So the second lesson, more funding for those

oversubscribed programs and then -- and then the third is

support for those smaller fleets. There's a lot of -- a

lot great reasons to -- to adopt the technology, but those

incentives would help the small folks. And then the last

one is on reporting to make sure that there's proper

education to help it go all the way and get all the data

that CARB needs to make the regulations succeed.



Our next speaker is Jennifer Martinez. After


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

218

Jennifer, we have John Costantino, Chris Shimoda, and Urvi

Nagrani.

So, Jennifer, I've activated your microphone.


MS. MARTINEZ: Okay. Good afternoon, Chair

Nichols and members of the Board. My name is Jennifer

Martinez. I am youth leader with CAUSE, Central Coast

Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy in Oxnard,

California.

Along with CAUSE, I support the ACT Rule. I have

lived in Oxnard my whole life and have seen the impacts

that diesel trucks has on my community and the working

class. Many members of the communities that I know have

respiratory issues. And the cause is the polluted air

here in our city, due to the use of diesel trucks. And

with the proposal of expansion of the Port of Hueneme,

this will get much worse.

The health of our community members are crucial,

since many of them are essential workers, more

specifically, agricultural workers that cannot sacrifice a

day to go to the doctor or stay home in fear of losing

their jobs and because effects of the pandemic has greatly

affected their well-being, their financial situation, and

their living situation.

We must address the pollution problem to ensure


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

219

that pollution does not become a norm in marginalized

communities.



Our next speaker is John Costantino. I have

activated your microphone. You can unmute your -- unmute

yourself and being.

MR. COSTANTINO: Great. Thank you. Good

afternoon Chairman Nichols and members of the Board. I

appreciate the opportunity to comment. I am John

Costantino and I'm speaking today on behalf of Trillium.

Trillium is a provider of alternative fuels and

infrastructure for the heavy-duty sector, including

hydrogen, including electricity, and renewable natural

gas.

Along with the other stakeholders today, the

focus on reducing emissions with renewable natural gas

vehicles and fuels, we are requesting the Board strengthen

the rule by directing the additional definition of

near-zero vehicle to include certified low NOx. The new

heavy-duty marketplace is big enough for the rule -- for

this rule to include low NOx fueled vehicles and trucks.

This is not an "and" but an -- this is an "and"

not an "or". And including the provision for the early

years, we'll have the ability to add to the ZEV


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

220

technologies down the road. It will not harm that

mandate.

Even given the aggressive sales mandate in the

rule, in ten years there will still be 70 percent of the

non-zero -- 70 percent of the trucks will be non-zero.

And shouldn't we be producing as clean a vehicle as

possible in the interim.

An example, last year, 17 million cars were sold

in the-- in the United States. Only one car had a five

percent market share, the Ford F150. And this rule

requires heavy-duty trucks to make that five percent in

four years going from zero today, and then double again,

and double again, and double again.

Trillium is fuel agnostic and will -- and is

already building the fueling infrastructure of the future,

but there is no plan B in this rule except for diesel.

This doesn't have to be the case.

Following the other low-NOx trucks -- allowing

low-NOx trucks will help provide near-term air quality

benefits.

Thank you.


Our next commenter is Chris. Chris, I have

activated your microphone. You can begin.

MR. SHIMODA: Good afternoon, Chair Nichols and


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

221

Board members. Chris Shimoda with the California Trucking

Association. First, we'd like to acknowledge the steps

taken to streamline reporting. We appreciate the

flexibilities provided and the alternative approach taken

for facilities. Second, with regard to the sales

percentages, ACT was conceived and debated during the best

of economic times and with a seemingly endless supply of

incentive funds.

Because of the capability of today's technology,

suitability was found to be limited to specific duty

cycles and use cases. The proposal before you in

December -- in December reflected that work and was

ambitious, essentially proposing to have the commercial ZE

market surpass the mature light-duty market in a matter of

three years.

But to put it mildly, the world has changed since

December. We have a $54 billion State budget deficit, a

near zeroing out of the GGRF, or record unemployment, the

signs of pandemic-related economic stress and recession

are all around us. Based on experience from previous

downturns, public and private resources will tighten for

years to come. This is all to say that our collective

degree of difficulty has only increased since we last met

in December.

CTA's members and their manufacturing partners


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

222

have pioneered the testing and demonstration of

zero-emission trucks for over ten years. To take the next

step in successfully creating a zero-mission truck market,

there's much to be done by all stakeholders and we look

forward to our continued work with your agency.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is Urvi Nagrani. After Urvi, we

have Jesse Marquez, Justice Sandoval, and Yvonne Martinez

Watson.

So Urvi, I have activated your microphone.

MS. NAGRANI: Hi. My name is Urvi. And I'm

speaking on behalf of myself. I've submitted some written

analysis and would urge staff to review the full comments.

But the main points that I've got are we are in a

climate crisis and we need to accelerate this market more

than is comfortable. And right now, we have a rule that

is both feasible and not necessarily ambitious enough,

even though people are dragging their feet.

However, there are two technical areas where I

think minor tweaks could be made to the existing rule and

lead to a better outcome for California.

The first is as it relates to near zero-emission

vehicle definitions. Now, unlike those who are advocating

for natural gas solutions to be included, what I actually


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

223

think would be a better near-zero definition is one that

includes the fact that vehicles don't always just drive.

Work trucks primarily use their power to function the work

functions, not to drive.

And so a definition of all-electric mile range be

necessary to get a partial emission credit doesn't allow

solutions that would, for example, electrify the auxiliary

functions and reduce stationary emissions. There's data

from both Argonne National Lab and Oak Ridge National

Laboratory on their assessments on the amount of those

emissions, and I urge you to look into them

And the second is that the zero-emission

powertrain rule is linked to this and there are additional

compliance costs that would be on every manufacturer, not

just those who manufacture internal combustion engines.

Those extra costs will make it harder for new market

entries. And I believe that there are ways that you could

incorporate a waiver, so that a start-up entering the

market can scale more rapidly without having to incur

those costs that are assuming that emissions will be

reduced, because you're transitioning from an ICE system

to an electric system.

Whereas, if you've got a ZEP certified system and

a non-ZEP certified, also electric systems, there are no

emissions reductions. My full letter has more details on


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

224

both.


Our next speaker is Jesse Marquez. Jesse, I have


yourself and begin your testimony.

MR. MARQUEZ: Good afternoon, Chairman and

members of the Board. My name is Jesse Marquez. I've

been a lifetime resident of Wilmington, California. The

Port of Los Angeles is physically located in Wilmington

and the Port of Long Beach is our neighbor.

Many of you may have, you know, difficulty trying

to understand from a resident's perspective, but let me

make it very clear. Every day we have 35 to 40 thousand

diesel trucks a day passing through our Wilmington, San

Pedro, Long Beach, Carson, you know, and Compton

communities.

It is a living nightmare. These trucks were

supposed to be taken off the freeways and roads, and be

put onto the Alameda Corridor. The public supported

spending public money, billions of dollars, to build the

Alameda Corridor and for the purpose of taking the trucks

off the roads.

But we have government agencies, such as ACTA and

the ports who really don't want to use the Alameda

Corridor. So here we are 15 years later, it's only being


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

225

used at about 30 to 35 percent capacity. So we support

transitioning to a zero-emissions freight truck technology

and for all public transportation. And I also want to

give you an idea too, that when the ports and industry

talk to you about what is currently available, our

organization almost monthly publishes an update of

zero-emission technologies.

Right now, there are 11 Class 8 trucks that you

can order and purchase today now. There's ten tractors

that you can purchase today now. Now, they may not all

able to go three, four, five hundred miles, but everyone

of them can do short distances.

So we want no extension for all communities that

bordering ports, and freight transportation corridors, and

warehouse distribution centers. We want the electric

trucks now. We don't want to wait another three, four,

five, ten years, when they are available today now.

So please, you know, increase the time to start

in 2021. Thank you.


Our next speaker is Justice Sandoval. Justice, I

have activated your microphone. You can begin.

MS. SANDOVAL: Hi. Can you hear me?


MS. SANDOVAL: Hi. My name is Justice. And I'm


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

226

a community member and youth leader in San Bernardino.

And I also volunteer with the Sierra Club. And while big

corporations like Amazon are seeing an increase on

consumerism due to staying at home during COVID, cities

like mine have been shown to be essential during this

time. But we are feeling the negative effects on health

tremendously.

The people I love that I see every day are

struggling to breathe and are constantly needing

assistance from their inhaler, which causes a delay in

their everyday life. Not voting for this zero-emission's

rule at a time where we are seeing a deadly virus that

attacks your lungs feels like a hate crime.

My community is black, brown, and low income.

And while the odds seem to be against us at every

direction, you can help change the way that we breathe.

You can give us a clean breath, something that my youth

and myself have not experienced here in this IE, but

something that we deserve.

There is a current uprising for people like those

in my community and you have the privilege to decide what

side of history you are on, big corporations that are

killing us and our environment or on the side of the

people and our health.

I ask you to please make the right decision.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

227

Thank you.


Our next speaker is Yvonne Martinez Watson.

After Yvonne, we have Kathy Kerridge, Jim Smith, and Sam

Appel.

Yvonne, I have activated your microphone. You

can unmute yourself and begin your testimony.

MS. MARTINEZ WATSON: Hi. Good afternoon. My

name is Yvonne Martinez Watson. I'm the Chair of the

Environmental Justice Committee for the Sierra Club

Angeles Chapter. We urge you to pass the Advanced Clean

Truck Rule.

I'm a resident of Montebello, an SB 535

disadvantaged community, burdened by high levels of

environmental pollution, including bad air quality from

fossil fuel emissions. As you've heard, communities like

mine are being hit hard by COVID-19. And we are at much

greater risk for poor recovery outcomes and substantial

organ damage due to our prior exposure to air pollution.

I have severe asthma. Last year, I was

hospitalized twice with respiratory failure. I know what

it's like to be intubated and put on mechanical

ventilation. It's a traumatic experience and I wish

nobody else would ever have to experience it.

Lives are at risk now. We need the Advanced


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

228

Clean Truck Rule now. Please act now.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is Kathy Kerridge. Kathy, I

have activated your microphone.

MS. KERRIDGE: Thank yo. I'm Kathy Kerridge.

I'm with 350 Bay Area Action. And we submitted over 600

name in support of this rule in May. I'm also

representing Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community.

We're in the midst of a climate crisis. As a new

grandmother, I want my grandson to have a safe and healthy

planet to live on when he's my age. We only have ten

years to reduce carbon emissions by one-half. These

regulations are a crucial step in leading the way to a

safer place to live where don't have to stay inside for

weeks each fall because of fires and we don't have to

worry about how much -- how we will protect our

communities from sea level rise, or how we will deal with

ocean acidification.

This will also make California a healthier place

to live. My daughter just bought a house and I became

acutely aware that in Benicia the only affordable homes

for young families were near the freeway, or the refinery,

or both.

This means that not only are communities of color


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

229

and low-income communities being exposed to terrible air

pollution from diesel trucks, but also increasingly all of

the young families who have to live in these places

because that's all they can afford. This rule can help

clean up exhaust from the trucks on the freeways and make

this a safer place for young children to live.

This can start to have dramatic and long-lasting

improvements on their health.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is Jim Smith. Jim, I have


MS. SMITH: Thank you. Good afternoon Chair

Nichols, Board Members and staff. Thank you and CARB

staff for your leadership in developing a strong Advanced

Clean Truck Rule. My name is Jim Smith political

coordinator with the Teamsters Union representing drivers

at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

It's been a long day and you've heard from a lot

of speakers, many of whom have echoed what I was prepared

to say today, so I will keep my comments short.

But I do want to say that we join with the rest

of labor, the EJ community, and environmentalists in

supporting the rule before the Board today. And we hope

you will include an objective within today's Board


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

230

resolution that will address the problem of truck driver

misclassification in the Fleet Rule.

Thank you.


Next up we have Sam Appel. After Sam, we have

Steven Ellis, Alan Langdon, and Stan DeLizo.

So, Sam, I have activated your microphone. Go

ahead and begin your testimony.

Sam, are you there? I see you on unmuted

yourself, but we can't hear you?

MR. APPEL: Hello. My name is Sam Appel. I'm

with the Blue Green Alliance. We're a national coalition

of unions and environmental groups working to advance high

roads zero-emission economy.

We support the rule before the Board today. A

representative of the California Teamsters Public Affairs

Council, the statewide representative for the Teamsters,

gave me his permission to express his support for the rule

as well.

I want to uplift comments made here today, one

right before mine, and those by many community

environmental justice, economic justice, labor unions, and

environmental groups.

I'll touch briefly on a few key points less

emphasized by my colleagues. Broadly speaking, the ACT


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

231

presents a major step in the right direction on the path

to a high-road, high-equity, low-carbon economy in

California. Here we have a strong manufacturing rule with

a strong reporting rule. We expect a strong fleet --

future fleet rule and we hope for healthy targeted

incentives for high-road employers in the future.

These are the instruments we have to chart a

course for the U.S. on GHGs to protect EJ communities in

California and to delivery high quality jobs to workers

facing various unemployment including those posed by

systemic racism and white supremacy.

You're heard the plight of independent

contractors here today and we've discussed the barriers

truck drivers face to adopting new technology. These are

predominantly workers of color facing working conditions

akin to indentured servitude. Many organizations have

drawn attention to the need to equitably regulate this

section of industry in the Fleet Rule. That means

corporations paying for electric trucks, not workers.

We've also heard today about the promise of

manufacturing and relation jobs and the roll-out of

electric trucks. Many of the jobs in this -- in these

industries are indeed high quality. However, let's be

clear, not all jobs in these sectors are high road, and

they're not necessarily going to stay in California or


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

232

come here, unless we proactively work to make that happen.

Many manufacturing workers, including those in

the State face serial racial and sexual harassment and

health and labor violations, unsafe working conditions,

and insecure work.

Many vehicle manufacturing --

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Sam, you time is up.

MR. APPEL: -- (inaudible) and the growing spike

chain (inaudible) can be an economic boon to the U.S. and

California or it can materialize elsewhere.

CARB must use its regulatory power and the power

of its --

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Sam, your --

MR. APPEL: -- (inaudible) be it that California

and the U.S. benefit from the growth of electric trucking.

And we urge you to take a Board Resolution today

to ensure that the Fleet Rule equitably addresses

misclassification in the drivers --

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Thank you, Sam.

Our next speaker is Steven Ellis. Steven, I have


MS. ELLIS: Hi. Can you hear me?


MR. ELLIS: Great. Thank you. Thank you, Chair

Nichols and ARB Board. My name is Steve Ellis with


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

233

American Honda Motor Company. Certainly, we appreciate

the efforts and the leadership to of the State of

California. And specifically for hydrogen stations,

appreciate the LCFS HRI credit program that will really

help advance a hundred percent renewable hydrogen.

My comment, even though Honda does not make

heavy-duty or light-duty, I want to encourage the State to

make sure it stays the course with light-duty vehicles,

and the importance of synergy between light-duty and

heavy-duty on the supply chain of all components, which

goes all the way back to the hydrogen supply and

everything between that and the wheel of the car. So it's

critical that the State stay the course on that.

Also, I wanted to respond to something I just

recently heard by a commenter, Beverly DesChaux from the

Central Coast. It's sad and it hurts to hear people

foster misinformation, despite the efforts of the hydrogen

community to continually show that not only is hydrogen

not a hundred percent all fossil fuel, as she stated, but

as a matter of fact over half the stations in California

are currently delivering hundred percent renewable,

hydrogen despite the fact that the State's requirement, at

33 percent renewable, leads to between 50 to 60 percent

carbon reduction from every fuel cell vehicle on the road,

regardless of light- or heavy-duty. And that is on par


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

with where battery electrics are at nominally between grid

and a hundred percent renewable.

So we support the pathway at a hundred percent

renewable for both battery electric and hydrogen fuel

cell, but wanted to correct the record with misinformation

that was put out there by those comments.



Our next speaker is Alana. I have activated your


MS. LANGDON: Thanks, Ryan. Appreciate it.

Chair Kohl's, Board members and staff. Good afternoon.

My name is Alana Langdon and I am the Senior Manager of

External Affairs and Public Policy for Nikola Corporation.

And we are in strong support of CARB's ACT Rule.

Nikola Corporation is globally transforming the

transportation industry. As a designer and manufacturer

of zero-emission battery electric vehicles, fuel cell

electric vehicles, and hydrogen stations, Nikola is driven

to revolutionize the economic and environmental impact of

commerce as we know it.

Committed to a clean transportation future from

energy creation to energy consumption, Nikola is

developing a robust U.S. and European footprint for both

vehicles and infrastructure, leveraging key strategic


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

235

industry partnerships, such as IVECO, Bosch, Hanwha, Nel

and others. The company's vision is to be a

zero-emissions commercial transportation system leader.

As a manufacturer of zero-emission vehicles, we

do see the ACT Rule as critical public policy that will

pave the way for growing the deployment of zero-emission

trucks into the California marketplace to achieve a more

sustainable future and to address the reduction of

greenhouse gas emissions and criteria pollutants from the

transportation and heavy-duty sectors.

Although this rule encourages the manufacturing

of more zero-emission trucks, which we appreciate and

wholly support, we also recognize that policies and

incentives that ease and encourage fleet operators to

adopt and purchase these vehicles are also important and

will be needed to unsure the rule's overall success.

Nikola looks forward to doing our part to help

usher in a zero-emissions transportation future in

California and beyond.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is Stan DeLizo. After Stan, we

have Mark Abramowitz, Michael Carr, and Mark Sheldon.

So Stan, I have activated your microphone. You



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

236

MR. DELIZO: All right. Can you hear me?


MR. DELIZO: Great. Good afternoon. My name is

Stan DeLizo, and I appreciate you taking the time to hear

me out.

I've listened to the other OEMs that have

presented today and appreciate all their comments, agree

with their comments, so I will not repeat them. I've also

heard the needs of the cities, states, counties for these

improvements, as well as the people.

We believe that there is an opportunity here and

hope to continue to compete in this market. However, what

I want to ask is for the products that are in the -- in

the field today that are going to be, I guess, placed into

production within the time frames allotted, what is your

expectations for reliability for those vehicles and how

does this organization propose to meet those reliability

targets to ensure that the customers have a product that

is -- that remains in operation such that it makes those

companies money and stay within the monetary limits that

have been noted to date?

And that's -- that's the end of my question.

Thank you for your hearing me.


speaker is Mark. Mark, I have activated your microphone.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

237

MR. ABRAMOWITZ: Yes. Can you hear me okay?


MR. ABRAMOWITZ: Thank you. Chair Nichols and

Board members, my name is Mark Abramowitz. And I'm

President of Community Environmental Services. I'm

thrilled to be able to express my support for the proposed

ACT Rule, the concept of such a rule, and the availability

of the technology to eliminate diesel with the roll-out of

zero-emission technologies was not even dreamed about when

I first started working on air pollution reduction

strategies 40 years ago.

Today, we can look forward to zero-emission

battery and fuel cell trucks, trucks that can do the job,

can reduce GHGs, and eliminate diesel death zones

throughout the state. Your staff has done great work and

I commend you for your bold leadership and your investment

message to the market in support of clean air jobs.

It's a new day. Thank you very much.


Our next speaker is Michael Carr.

Oh, Michael, it looks like I'm running into an

issue where I'm not allowed to turn on your microphone.

You can call in to the call number and access code. I

promise it works this time and we will call on you a

little bit later.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

238

Next speaker after Michael is Mark Sheldon. And

after Mark, we have Gustavo Villa, Victor Bendavid --

Benavidez, and Joe Dalum.

So Mark Sheldon, I have activated your


MR. SHELDON: Okay. Thank you very much. I'm

speaking on -- in strong support of the proposed rule,

representing only myself. I'm an Orange County based

consultant with professional experience in energy and air

emissions. I also remember the days when smog alerts were

all too common. And more recently, I've been listening to

area environmental justice communities, including feedback

facilitated through AB 617.

A recurring theme in those meetings has been the

impact of local and corridor trucking on air quality in

all of these communities and the citizen concern for the

impact of these vehicles on climate change. The proposed

rule will make progress towards addressing their needs and

those of all Californians.

And it's important that this rule address all

zero-emission electric drive -- electric drive

technologies, including hydrogen fuel cell as well as

battery electric and the infrastructure needed to extend

the reach of these vehicles with energy renewably sourced

as already mandated and expanding under existing


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

239

California policy.

Supporting the hydrogen fuel cell -- supportive

hydrogen fuel cell trucking will particularly payoff as

that technology lends itself to scale-up to long range

heavy-duty applications.

The early focus of these developments on the

ports and associated local corridors is appropriate for

nearer term air quality relief urgently needed in those

communities. Looking forward, I also encourage

facilitation of vehicles and infrastructure for

development throughout the state, connecting to and

facilitating the growth of interstate networks.

California can, in this way, play a significant

role in the renewables transformation of the national

goods movement industry.



Our next speaker is Gustavo Villa. Gustavo, I


and begin.

MR. VILLA: Okay. I'm ready.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Okay. Go ahead.

MR. VILLA: Thank you. Thank you, Board members

and all participants. My name is Gustavo Villa. I have

been a truck driver for the Port of Los Angeles and Long


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

240

Beach since 1991, and I'm also living in Maywood, very

close to the 710 freeway. I wanted you to let you know

that I'm in full support to the approval of the Advanced

Clean Truck Rule.

For the last seven years, I've worked for

California Cartage Express. We pay all costs in operating

the trucking company into the bunch of us drivers by

misclassifying us. And they actually call it independent

contractors. Everything from diesel, road tax,

maintenance, insurance, comes out of my pocket. And the

Labor Commissioner investigated and found that this was

way stiff and we are not the only ones. Most of the

companies of the ports operates this way.

Three years ago I told the Port of Los Angeles

and Long Beach that misclassifying drivers as independent

contractors hurts the environment. By misclassifying us,

this company takes no responsibility in maintain their

trucks. And I have to pay for all these expenses.

Just one example. In order to replace my diesel

particulate filters, I had to pay $12,000 out of my

pocket. Like most of the working people, I didn't have

$12,000 around, so I had to put off replacing the diesel

particulate filter until I could afford it.

Now, imagine thousand misclassified drivers

delaying our trucks. This is not acceptable


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

241

And thank you.


So Michael -- Michael Carr, if you're there, I

still can't activate your microphone. So we have the

call-in information up there and you will dial star nine

to indicate that you want to speak, if you can hear me.

For right now, we will move on to Victor. Oop,

I'm getting notification, Victor, that you have the same

issue with this. So if you call the call-in number and

dial the access code and dial star nine, we'll get to you

a little bit later.

Next, we have Joe Dalum. Joe, I have activated

your microphone. You can begin.

MR. DALUM: Very good. Good afternoon, Chair

Nichols and Board members. My name is Joe Dalum. I'm

President of Odyne Systems. Odyne develops and sells

zero-emission solutions for trucks operating at work

sites, also known as electric power take-off or ePTO

systems. Odyne respectfully recommends that the Air

Resources Board consider including vehicles that -- with

approved electric zero-emission worksite solutions,

referred to as ePTO systems, in its definition of near

zero-emission vehicles in the proposed Advanced Clean

Trucks Regulations.

Thousand of medium- and heavy-duty trucks


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

242

operating in California spend much of the day running

engines to provide for truck-mounted equipment at

worksites. Examples include utility trucks that repair

power lines, trucks operating cranes, pumps, or

compressors, and, many, many other applications.

CARB, in consultation with the California Energy

Commission, has previously defined near zero-emission as

vehicles that have a duty cycle that includes zero

emission operation, including ePTOs. CARB wrote that

these vehicles create a pathway to zero emissions. ePTO

systems are already in use. Third-party studies paid for

by the State of California have shown that ePTO systems

provide extraordinarily strong full-day NOx emission

reductions of up to 96 percent and very large full day

fuel savings.

Increasing the use of ePTOs would provide

communities and commercial operators with other benefits,

such as reduced noise, and improved employee health due to

the elimination of job-site emissions.

In summary, Odyne respectfully asks that electric

zero-emission worksite solutions be included in the

definition of a near zero-emissions vehicle in the

proposed Advanced Clean Truck Regulations.

Thank you.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

243

We have some phone numbers who have indicated

they want to speak. First, we have phone number 683.

I've unmuted you. Can you please state your name for the

record.

MR. CARR: Was that 1683?

me?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI:

MR. CARR: Yes. Okay.

Ending in 683.

Thank you. Can you hear


MR CARR: Okay. Great. It's -- it is Michael

Carr with Shell. Good afternoon, Chair Nichols, Board

members, and staff.

Start by saying we wholeheartedly support the

goals of the Advance Clean Trucks Rule. It's consistent

with our bold ambition to become a net zero carbon energy

company by 2050. It's supportive of our Greenlots

subsidiary that provides EV charging infrastructure

solutions, as well as our growing hydrogen fuel business

that supports fuel cell electric vehicles that will be

critical to meet our shared transportation electrification

ambitions, particularly if the medium- and heavy-duty

sectors.

That's the focus of this rulemaking. While

speaking about hydrogen, it's important to note that the

hydrogen consumed as transportation fuel today is actually


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

244

cleaner than the electric power provided by the grid to

battery electric vehicles. And we and other hydrogen

suppliers are working to make that fuel even cleaner in

the future. And it will ultimately be a hundred percent

renewable alongside any electricity that's consumed.

We do have concerns about the exclusivity of the

technical solutions that are contemplated by this rule.

There's ample room for other technologies under the ACT

tent, most importantly the inclusion of 0.02 gram ultra

low-NOx vehicles that can utilize renewable sources and

offer negative emission pathways for freight transport in

California.

And as Tim Carmichael of SoCalGas noted, these

vehicles provide the most cost effective and near-term

emission reduction opportunities that so many who have

testified today have asked this Board to enable.

Including these alongside EVs as part of a comprehensive

solution --

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Fifteen seconds.

MR. CARR: -- simply makes good policy,

particularly when we need to stretch the impact of every

dollar as far as possible in our COVID-challenged economy.

We urge the Board to incorporate crediting of

these vehicles in this ACT rulemaking.

Thank you.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

245


Our next three speakers are phone numbers ending

in 480, and then 566. So I'll first activate the phone

number for 480.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: I apologize, phone number

480. We're getting a lot of echo in the feedback. So if

can you mute your computer, that's probably what's

happening there. I will unmute you right now, if that

actually -- if the issue is fixed.

Hello. Are you there?

Hello. Phone number 480, are you there?

Okay. We'll skip you for now.

Next is a phone number ending in 566. I have


MR. BENAVIDEZ: Hi. Can you hear me?


MR. BENAVIDEZ: Hello. My name is Victor

Benavidez. I'm a CAUSE youth leader and I live in Oxnard

California.

The California Air Resource Board is moving

forward with its groundbreaking electric truck rule,


beginning in 2030. It's important to us because the

people's health in my community is important.

During this time, everybody is concerned about


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

246

their health and diesel trucks are large contributors to

air pollution and diesel emissions in California. These

can all cause health problems. The California Office of

Environmental Health Hazard Assessment did a study that

looked into the health impacts of long-term exposure to

diesel exhaust and they discovered that diesel exhaust can

cause lung and heart diseases, and even cancer as well.

And during this time, it's important that we stay

healthy because of COVID-19, which can cause a lot of

problems to people with lung cancer.

With a personal story. My uncle is a truck

driver who has been working for 15 years and just recently

have been diagnosed with some lung problems. And he is

very concerned about his health. And he knows that this

would be a great opportunity to help restore his health or

at least help others not get the same problem as him. And

the health of our community needs to be priority over

profits --

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Thirty seconds.

MR. BENAVIDEZ: -- from big corporations.

And that is all. Thank you.


We will go back to phone number ending 480. I've

unmuted -- I have unmuted you. You can begin your

testimony.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

247

MR. CARR: It's Michael again. You've dialed my

other number, so I'll yield the two minutes back. We've

been here long enough

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Oh. Thank you.

MR. CARR: No worries.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Next we -- next up, we

have a phone number ending in 686 followed by Katherine

Garcia and a phone number ending 457.

So I'll start with the phone number ending in

686. You are now unmuted. Please state your name for the

record.

MS. SANCHEZ: Hi. My name is Naomi Sanchez. And

I'm a resident in the community of Barrio Logan in San

Diego. Lots of trucks pass through my neighborhood all

the time. And the area is really contaminated because the

port and a lot of industries are here. And trucks come

through from the freeway, which is right next to us.

My little sister's respiratory issues got worse

when we moved to Barrio Logan and the doctors told my mom

that is was because of where we lived. And lot of people

I know that live here have had a lot of breathing problems

because of the air and need medicine to breathe properly.

I'm studying to become a medical assistant and I

learned that poor air quality even causes depression and

affects people's abilities to think and perform at their


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

248

best as well, and that's not okay. We don't have control

over where we can afford to live. And big companies will

try to stop these regulations, because they know people

affected by truck pollution don't have the time, energy,

or the language to complain.

So our government needs to make laws to protect

us. Companies that make medium- and heavy-duty trucks

need a requirement to manufacture and sell more electric

zero-emission trucks as soon as possible. Please pass the

Advanced Clean Truck Rule and prioritize our well-being

and health over truck company profits.

Thank you.


Next up, we have Katherine Garcia. Katherine, I


and begin.

MS. KATHERINE GARCIA: Thank you, Ryan. Good

afternoon Chair Nichols and members of the Board. I'm

Katherine Garcia, Policy Advocate for Sierra Club

California representing half a million members and

supporters in California. We are in strong support of the

Advanced Clean Trucks Rule. Thank you to CARB staff for

your work on the rule during the past three and a half

years and for your presentation today.

The updated regulation will deliver a steady


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

249

stream of zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty trucks to

California. It will help our state cut harmful air

pollution, especially in diesel death zones, where

low-income communities and communities of color

disproportionately suffer from truck pollution. While

some California cities and delivery companies have already

started transitioning to electric trucks, widespread

adoption will only occur if manufacturers are required to

produce electric trucks.

Personally, I am so excited for an electric truck

future. As an avid bicyclist, I'm often astounded by the

amount of toxic truck pollution when biking around

Sacramento and across the Yolo Causeway bike path right

next to Interstate 80 over to Davis where I live. And as

a new mom, I know that parents across California will be

grateful every time we see an electric truck driving down

the road. Our children's lungs deserve to breathe clean

air.

Thank you.



Following that, we have Angie Balderas's, Jack Symington,

and Lisa McGhee.

So phone number ending in 457, I have unmuted

you. Please state your name for the record.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

250

MS. AZAMIAN: Thank you. My name is Shayda

Azamian from the Leadership Counsel for Justice and

Accountability. And we work alongside rural inlands

communities through the San Joaquin and the Eastern

Coachella valleys.

The current ACT rule is far stronger than

proposed this past December, though year to year electric

truck sales targets must be met faster. Simply put,

communities have waited long enough for significant

improvements to what is perpetually hazardous and

undoubtedly lethal air quality.

As just one example, one life-long resident of

Fresno, California living in community bordering the

highly truck trafficked Highway 99 shared that a doctor

mistook her for having smoker's lung, despite her never

smoking a cigarette in her life.

Another resident living near the Amazon and Ulta

warehouses in South Central Fresno shared that she can't

hear what's happening around her home or when someone is

at her door, due to the trucks passing by non-stop just

past her yard.

There are people here who can tell you what it's

like to watch thousands of trucks passing through three

feet in front of their homes every day and feel what

it's -- and feel the damage that it inflicts on their


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

251

lungs, their bodies, and their families over time.

The urgency of a stronger ACT rule cannot be

overstated. We stand with CCAEJ and others in asking for

accelerated targets for heavy-duty Class 7 and 8 tractors,

which are the same trucks driving by in thousands every

day through residential neighborhoods that closely border

warehouse and distribution centers.

Additionally, as our state's primary agency

charged with protecting the public from air pollution and

fighting climate change, CARB cannot permit or promote

false solutions with natural gas operations.


MS. AZAMIAN: Thank you.


Our next speaker is Angie Balderas. I have


MS. BALDERAS: All right. Thank you. Can you

hear me?


MS. BALDERAS: All right. Great. Good

afternoon, Board. Hello. My name is Angie Balderas.

am an organizer with the My Generation Campaign here in

the Inland region, also known as the Serrano and Tongva

land. And we're -- I'm supporting the Advanced Clear --

Clean Truck Rule.


I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

252

I support the rule because in my community for

many years, it's a life and death reality, believe it or

not. Air pollution and dirty trucks are common in our

communities. Our communities are infested with warehouses

along with railyards, gas plants, airports, and other

polluters.

I have siblings who suffer from asthma. I've had

loved ones die from cancer. I myself, depending on the

air quality in certain -- I have certain health concerns.

My breathing gets triggered. And now with the smoggy

summers here, it's an alarming time for me and my loved

ones, as well as my community.

The best thing for me is to stay home. But when

you're surrounded by trucks, and warehouses, and airport

expansions, like the one in San Bernardino, that keep

bringing trucks, polluters into our communities, who can't

catch a break -- a break from this -- from pandemic after

pandemic.

I urge CARB Board to vote yes for the Advanced

Clean Truck Rule. Please. Our folks need a damn break, a

chance to breathe clean air. Please do your part to save

a life as I see many in my community dying from

respiratory issues or cancer. Please stop enabling this

pandemic of climate change. Let's do our part.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

253

speaker is Jack Symington. Jack, I have activated your

microphone. You can begin.

MR. SYMINGTON: Hello. Can you hear me?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Hello. Yeah, we can.

MR. SYMINGTON: Awesome. My name is Jack

Symington and I am addressing the board on behalf of the

Los Angeles Cleantech Incubator and thank you for the

opportunity to provide this comment on the Advanced Clean

Truck regulation.

LACI strongly supports and urges CARB to approve

the proposed ACT Regulation which is an essential tool in

transforming California's transportation system to zero

omissions in order to achieve the State's air pollution

and climate goals.

LACI is working to ensure that the Los Angeles

region meets aggressive goals for the transition to

zero-emission trucks by to 2028 and 2035. Specifically,

we're aiming for 40 percent of all short-haul and drayage

trucks in the region to be zero emission by 2028 to ensure

steady progress towards the San Pedro Bay Port's Clean Ar

Action Plan commitment to transition the entire drayage

fleet serving the ports to zero emissions by 2035.

Increasing manufacturers' minimum numbers of

zero-emission truck sales will be not only critical for

achieving these emission goals, but also critical for


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

254

positioning California as a global leader in zero-emission

technology.

The ACT regulation is a critical step forward

that will send clear market signals to enable the planning

and investment needed to further develop and scale

zero-emission truck manufacturing, infrastructure

deployment, and research and development in California.

This high-value added industry will benefit California's

economy through high-paying green union jobs and

agglomerating innovative transportation companies in the

state.

We strongly urge you to support the ACT

Regulation, and we stand ready to work with you to ensure

that success of the regulation and a zero emissions

future.

Thank you. And I yield the rest of my time.


Our next speaker is Lisa McGhee. After Lisa, we

have Odette Moran, Fe Koons, and Yassamin Kavezade.

So Lisa, I have activated your microphone. You

can unmute yourself and begin when you're ready.

MS. McGHEE: Good afternoon. I am Lisa McGhee

with GreenPower Motor Company. We're a zero-emission bus

and cargo van manufacturer and we are in strong support of

accelerating more adoption of ZEVs. In June 2019, this


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

255

Board also adopted the ZEV Powertrain Certification, with

the intention of supporting the medium-, heavy-duty

technology and manufacturers to build and integrate more

reliable and durable technology to instill fleet

confidence.

We would like to see support and funding for ZEV

medium-, heavy-duty vehicles for either the fleet and/or

manufacturers that achieve these higher measures and other

advancements.

Moving forward, more support is necessary for

small private fleets that also include independent

contractors. The small fleets are in a disadvantaged

scenario with this measure. Critical funding is necessary

for small fleets and independent contractors.

The 50-fleet vehicle threshold is moving us

closer, but it voids small fleet data, which is critically

necessary. For example, the daily trip VMT and count of

trucks is not a one-to-one ratio. Small-sized fleets

could have two to three drivers sharing a truck keeping

one truck on the road 18 to 24 hours daily.

Additionally, utilization of charging is

impacting electric tariff rate design. Because of the

advancements in high voltage charging, which is increasing

in the medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and impacts the

effects of demand, which results in a low load factor


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

256

barrier, and exaggerates this effect on small-sized

fleets, you will have gaps if you do not develop a program

to bring more support to small-sized fleets.

Lessons are learned and the ZEV manufacturers are

in critical need of more support and programs available

for educating fleets, garage services, and dealerships in

order to achieve the aimed adoption.

EV vehicle services are required at the local

level in order to keep these vehicles on the road, and

dealerships have choices to sell other technologies and

require funding, support, and programs as ZEV OEMs are

required by law to sell these vehicles through

dealerships.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is Odette. I have activated

your microphone. Go ahead and begin.

MS. MORAN: Okay. Thank you. Can everyone hear

me?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: We can

MS. MORAN LOPEZ: Okay. Thank you. Hello. My

name is Odette Moran Lopez and I'm a CAUSE youth leader

from Oxnard, California. Thank you for taking your time

to listen to us speak and read our comments regarding this

groundbreaking and life-saving regulation.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

257

Like many before who have spoken before me, I

would like to start with a personal anecdote. My family

and I have lived in South Oxnard for the past 16 years.

We are about a three-minute walk to the nearest elementary

school and about a 15-minute walk from the city's water

facility, power plant, industrial port, truck route, and

beach.

Some of my fondest and earliest memories of South

Oxnard are of us walking to the beach as part of the field

trip with my elementary school classes. My classmates

would signal to truck drives to sound their horns for us.

If we were lucky, we would be able to convince at least

three or four truck drivers. I cannot appropriately

describe the small joy that the sound of the truck's horn

would give us.

I had not thought of it much before. I had not

realized how much living next to a power plant, a truck

route, an industrial port, and much more would mean to my

health and that of our community, how much these have

affected the air we breathe and determined our lives.

Now, imagine living where we live means with

something like COVID-19 a disease that attacks our already

compromised lungs and respiratory systems. Please

consider communities like ours, consider our health,

because it is one of the things that many have brushed


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

258

aside.

Diesel trucks still drive around our community.

Our air has been continually polluted and our lungs

constantly compromised. We need, and I emphasize need,

clean air trucks. I am here to tell you that requiring

manufacturers to build electric trucks is a necessity.

It's decision that holds power over our health and

ultimately our lives. We ask you to vote yes on this

ruling.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is Fe Koons. I have -- that's

odd. The -- the allow to talk is not functioning at the

moment.

If you could call in to this number right here we

have on the screen and dial star nine. Sorry about that.

We'll move to our next speaker, Yassamin. And

after Yassamin, we have Hugh Ross, a number ending in 050,

and Kimberly Garcia.

So Yassamin, I have activated your microphone.

You can begin.

MS. KAVEZADE: Hi. Can you hear me?


MS. KAVEZADE: Hello. My name is Yassamin

Kavezade, or Yassi, and I'm a community organizer with the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

259

Sierra Club's national campaign My Generation, and I also

live in Riverside, the valley of smog, where it's common

to have millions of square feet for warehouses operated by

Amazon, Walmarts. You name the corporation, chances are

we've got them.

In the recent uprisings for justice, a rule like

this, and many others is needed now more than ever, as our

black and brown communities inhale toxic air continuously.

This rule is a good start and it's going to not -- and

it's not going to be the end-all be-all, because we see

over thousands of trucks traveling in an hour in many of

our Inland Empire communities. I thank the Board for the

stronger sales requirement adopted from the May proposal,

but we can do better.

In my community, there's no coincidences that our

people experience below average lung development for

children and our basin received an F grade in the State of

the Air according to the American Lung Association again.

Natural gas is not renewable. We have natural

gas infrastructure that is parked right next to us. It

can leak, it can spill, and explode putting us in harm's

way. This rule provides the changes we need to see in the

market for zero emissions heavy-duty transportation. I

hope CARB can continue to collaborate with utilities,

local air district and manufacturers to see infrastructure


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

260

implementation in Inland Empire communities in the

frontlines right there in goods movement.

Our communities are also at risk of contracting

the COVID-19 virus. And we'll seek -- see more cases as

our air pollution continues to choke us. On another note,

we hope to see all of you all supporting local

implementation rules in the South Coast Air District -- at

the South Coast Air District supporting air emissions

reductions at warehouses under the facility based indirect

sources.

The local air districts need to see CARB staff in

support to show the connection that we're in this

together. This rule is connected to getting carbon

neutrality in goods movement. As the years progress, I

hope that the Advanced Clean Truck Rule continues to

strengthen and see greater access for clean zero-emissions

trucks in our communities.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is Hugh Ross. Hugh, I have


MR. ROSS: Can you hear me?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: We can her you.

MR. ROSS: Great. Chair Nichols and members of

the Board. My name is Hugh Ross and I'm here representing


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

261

the 350 Bay Area Transportation Committee. I'm here to

urge the Board the approve the ACT Regulation to combat

the pollution and climate emergency that threatens our

most vulnerable communities. I formerly worked for six

years at Tesla as a mechanical engineer on mass produced

battery components.

Zero-emissions trucks are the only plausible

means to decouple California's economically critical

freight transportation from pollution and greenhouse gas

emissions.

Without a regulatory push spurious arguments

about demand, infrastructure, and ownership costs will

always win out in the Board rooms of companies that

currently profit by selling diesel trucks.

Zero emissions truck technology is ready to be

deployed now. Even at maximum speed, launching a new

vehicle with existing powertrain technology takes times,

so manufacturers must start working today. Zero

emissions' trucks also bring with them, the economic

benefits of more efficient freight transportation, lower

operating costs, and new production and infrastructure

jobs.

If approved, the ACT rule will change the board

room conversation for truck manufacturers and put

California on a path towards cleaner air, more stable


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

262

climate, and a stronger economy. Thanks for your time.


speaker is a phone number ending in 050. Please state

your name for the record. You can begin.

MR. EDGAR: Hi. Can you hear me?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: We can hear you.

MR. EDGAR: Great. ThanK you. Good afternoon,

Chair Nichols and Board members. This is Sean Edgar.

I'll share a quick personal story. This is all

I've been doing for the last 20 years. And I'm proud to

work for over 75 companies that went into a bank and they

borrowed or bonded over $100 million to make clean air

possible. So the folks I work with have been cutting back

on diesel death zones for over 20 years by operating over

4,000 natural gas vehicles at a huge cost of

infrastructure, which we're concerned are being abandoned

by the current process.

So with that, Clean Fleets is providing this

testimony to punctuate the requests of Thomas Lawson and

Tim Carmichael. We respectfully disagree, Chair Nichols,

that the Omnibus Rule will solve our concerns, and we will

appreciate you fostering today's discussion for staff to

walk us and the Board members through how the proposal

before you today furthers low-NOx engine deployment in the

next few years.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

263

This is especially important as over 300,000

diesel trucks are going to hit a wall under the Truck and

Bus Regulation and require replacement by 2023. And as

presented, this ACT does not support the continued

manufacture or purchase of low-NOx engines, thereby

risking the near-term progress towards San Joaquin and

South Coast deadlines.

The Board is, in effect, encouraging the purchase

of today's diesel technology over RNG and low-NOx

technology. And those diesel engines that will be

purchased will likely be in operation for several decades

I would predict.

If there is plan B --


MR. EDGAR: -- let the RNG and low-NOx operators

be that plan B.

I'll just conclude by saying our groups are all

about getting to clean air now and have -- the waste

industry has over a billion dollars invested. We are the

beachhead fleets and have been for the last 20 years. And

unfortunately, unless corrected with the definitional

change that we've asked about and the credit formal,

renewable natural gas and anaerobic digestion projects

from San Diego to South San Francisco to Sacramento will

suffer in the process.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

264


Our next speaker is Commissioner Lara. I have


begin you testimony.

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER LARA: Perfect. Thank

you. It's great to be able to provide some testimony as a

member of the public.

Chair Nichols and Board members, thank you for

taking this important step forward. As you know, back in

2014, we passed the Clean Truck Bus and Off-Road Vehicle

Act. And then in 2017, California made an investment of

nearly $1 billion in air quality by assessing mobile

sources -- by addressing mobile source pollution near our

ports.

This is going to be, you know -- and I'm proud to

have been a Board member of the ARB in 2017 and 2018. And

I enjoyed working with the members on regulations that

promote clean technologies in our cars and trucks.

As you know, prior to that, I served in the

Senate in southeast L.A. county, one of the most areas

with the largest air pollution in the country and in the

state. And so this is near and dear to my heart. This

new regulation is going to be groundbreaking and a product

of years of work to build lasting policies on mobile

sources. It ensures more options for truck fleets and


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

265

consumers, and bringing air quality improvements in the

areas that we need it the most.

So I want to again thank you and express my

wholehearted support for this new regulation and thank you

all for your continued great work to protect our most

vulnerable in our state. So thank you so much.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank, Senator Lara. I might

joint point out that you were also a member of the Air

Resources Board representing the Senate. I believe you

were the first --

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER LARA: Yes.

CHAIR NICHOLS: -- senator to the serve on the

Board, so you ought to add that to your resume.

(Laughter.)

BOARD MEMBER FLOREZ: Yeah, we miss you. We need

you -- we need to see you back. So anytime you want to

join us, that's great.

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER LARA: Thank you.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you, Commissioner.


Our final speaker is Kimberly Garcia. Kimberly,

I have activated your microphone. You can unmute yourself

and begin.

MS. KIMBERLY GARCIA: Good afternoon, Board

members and attendees. My name is Kimberly Garcia and I'm


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

266

CAUSE youth leader from Oxnard.

We support the ACT Rule because the effects that

emissions from diesel trucks can have on people's

respiratory health. While public health is always

important, it's something that we must be more

conscientious of as there's a pandemic that is more fatal

for those with respiratory issues. It's just going to be

made worse with poor local air quality.

Those of us that have respiratory issues have

been staying inside to avoid exposure to COVID-19. And to

promote social distancing, many of us have been ordering

thing online. Unfortunately, products are being delivered

via diesel trucks worsening local air pollution. But even

when this pandemic is over and online consumerism

decreases, California's environmental issues and the

medical conditions caused by air pollution won't.

Oxnard is right next to the Port of Hueneme. And

we live a few blocks closer to it, at six years old got me

an asthma diagnosis. For the past four years I've had to

drive to the city a half an hour way to receive vaccine to

control my allergies and prevent my asthma symptoms from

being exacerbated.

I started off having to go every week when I was

younger, but now I only have to go once a month. And

while my treatment has definitely made life easier for me,


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

267

I know that that path isn't available for everyone.

Over a decade has passed since I was first

diagnosed with asthma, so I have over ten years of

firsthand experience of the effects that air pollution has

on the health of our marginalized communities.

As someone who is fortunately able to remedy the

effects that air pollution had on my health while others

couldn't, I implore the California Air Resources Board to

vote yes on the ACT rule, while serving truck drivers for

a breath of fresh air.


BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Thank you. Madam Chair,

that concludes our list of speakers for this Board item

CHAIR NICHOLS: Well, that's terrific. We've had

great participation and a broad array of points that were

made.

I think I can close the record, but I want to

wait just in case staff needs to respond to any of the

points that were put in by any of the witnesses. So if

there are additional comments coming from the staff, I

believe there was also one CEQA-related comment that will

require our counsel to respond as well. So let's do those

before we close and then move to the Board discussion.

ATTORNEY CECERE: Ian Cecere, CARB counsel.

Thank you, Chair Nichols. CARB received written comments


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

268

during the public hearing related to environmental impacts

of the proposed ACT Rule. Commenters generally questioned

the rule's impact on lithium mining, battery disposal, and

energy demand, but do not identify any particular impact

associated with those issues not already analyzed in the

final environmental analysis.

The Final EA adequately addresses commenters'

concerns related to the proposed ACT Rule's potential

environmental impacts from lithium mining, disposal of

lithium batteries, and energy demand in its energy demand

hazards and hazardous materials and mineral resources

impact and mitigation analyses.

Thank you.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Corey,

were there -- well, there may be some questions that will

arise, but I think those will be part of the discussion.

So are there any additional points that you or Mr.

Kitowski or others felt you needed to address at this

point?

EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: No, chair. Just to go

to deliberations and we're prepared to respond to any

questions.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Great. Thank you.

All right. So, Board members, the record is

closed and it's now up to us. And I will call on people.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

269

Hello. Did someone just flag something?

VICE CHAIR BERG: It's okay.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. All right. So I am now

waiting for hands to go up here.

And the first one is from Dan Sperling. Dan, you

need to unmute yourself.

BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Yeah. Yeah.

CHAIR NICHOLS: There you go.

BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: So I actually raised my

hand in the zoom way as well, as have two others. So --

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes.

BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: -- I have -- I have two

questions and one suggestion. But before I get to that, I

want to emphasize how revolutionary this really is in a

really good way. You know, some revolutions don't always

turn out well. But this is a revolution that's on the

side of history. I have to say at the December Board

meeting, I was a little skeptical about having more

aggressive requirements than were proposed by the staff.

And as a result of that, I spend a lot of time with

studies, some of the NGOs organized a workshop, bringing

together all the experts on truck costs, truck

electrification costs. And, you know, my own colleagues

at UC Davis have just finished a big study on truck

electrification.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

270

And I think at the end of the day, it's becoming

very clear that many truck segments and many applications

are going to be very cost competitive very soon, and a lot

of very's in there.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes.

BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: But --

CHAIR NICHOLS: That's true.

BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: And, you know, it -- it

led to, you know -- you know, the discussion of

beachheads, you know, and segmenting the market. And I

think the staff may -- has made a good argument that it

would be really complicated to try to focus on those

segments that are particularly attractive, especially --

it's mostly the delivery trucks with a hundred mile range

or less. They become cost competitive very soon. I'm on

a total cost of ownership basis and even -- and not so far

off future in terms of purchase cost.

But many of the others are -- there are problems

with it. But what I've come to appreciate in part Chair

Nichols leadership and mentorship is that you've really

got to put a stake in the ground. And I think that's

really important that we're saying we're committed to

electrification.

And it's important, because the rest of the world

is watching, but it's also important because we need a lot


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

271

of partners to make this successful.

And, you know, the -- we need -- you know, we

need incentive money, because a lot of these companies are

smaller companies, companies in unique applications. It's

going to be really rough for them in the beginning and the

costs will be higher in the beginning, so incentives are

important. Charging infrastructure and hydrogen

infrastructure is really key to this to making this a

success. So these partnerships, you know, are really

critical. And we need all these other State agencies and

companies to be rallying around what we're proposing to

do.

So that leads me to a point, something that we

can do, and that we are doing is this having a fleet

purchase requirement. There was a pro -- and I think it's

really key to do that, reduce uncertainty as fast as

possible, get that out as quickly as possible, because

these manufacturers they're facing huge risks, huge costs.

And if they're in the position of having to sell car --

trucks that no one is going to buy, it could be

disastrous. So this Fleet Rule is -- is really, really

important.

So my first question to staff is there was a

proposal, I think it was first by ETC, but a few others

have talked about it, about linking the fleet purchase --


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

272

linking the ACT to the fleet purchase requirement.

Something like saying the ACT will not take effect

until -- not less than two years have passed after the

Fleet Rule is adopted.

Is that -- I mean, I know we always want

certainty and we don't like to waffle, but is that even a

plausible idea? It seems compelling to me, I have to say.

MSCD ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF VERGIS: Thank you,

Professor Sperling. This is Sydney Vergis. I'm the

Assistant Division Chief for the Mobile Source Control

Division.

So as you pointed out, under this regulation,

manufacturers will need to sell at a price point and

develop a product that works for consumers. And this will

drive innovation and creating more choices for truck

fleets, and truck drivers, and provide the certainty for

manufacturers that this is where the State is going.

In terms of the fleet regulation, I want to

assure you and the rest of the Board that we understand

the importance of moving quickly and certainly heard the

direction at the December Board meeting to do so.

We've already kicked off the process for

regulatory development with a workshop in February and

more workshops are coming this summer. And we're

certainly committed to returning to the Board in late 2021


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

273

and the early 2022 time frame and, committed to a full

public process.

Now, to your point, you may recall that this

current structure of bringing a manufacturer regulation in

advance of a purchase mandate was due to what we've heard

time and time again during the public process over the

last couple of years, and that is for fleets interested in

purchasing large volumes of zero-emission trucks, the

product simply wasn't available in the market. And that's

really what this regulation is intended to do to meet

those needs.

So the decision before you today can help ensure

that that product is brought to market.

BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: But you avoided --

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yeah, Dan, no. Let me say

something maybe on top of that, which is that I think

there has to be a mutual assurance both by the purchasers

that there will be vehicles and by the vehicle producers

that there will be purchasers, right? You have to have

both.

BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Right.

CHAIR NICHOLS: You can't proceed without both.

We couldn't do both together at the same time. I mean,

the bandwidth isn't there, but also, as Ms. Vergis was

saying, the decision, I think, on the part of the staff


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

274

having lived through several iterations of this kind of

policy making, was that it was important that we address

the production side first.

So I think we've got about as close to a public

commitment as you could possibly make, short of trying to

amend the rule. I think amending the rule would be

dangerous. I could explain why I think it could be

dangerous in various ways, but I wouldn't go there. I

am -- we could talk about that more if there's other Board

members that want to do that.

BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Okay. Okay. So I have a

less provoc -- a second less provocative question. We had

many of the representatives from the other states -- I

guess they were all one 177 states, plus NESCAUM. I've

not heard anything in terms of the rule that acknowledges

that, you know, in -- in terms of the design. And those

of us that suffered through the light-duty ZEV rule, we

spent a huge amount of time working with the other states

with all kinds of creative mechanisms. And someone

mentioned -- I forgot who it was, mentioned the idea of

pooling, which comes back from the light-duty ZEV.

I wonder -- it's not that we necessarily have to

change anything now, but I wonder if more deliberate

discussions with the other states -- with other states

would be useful in terms -- and maybe lead to some kind of


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

275

adjustments down the -- down the road.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yeah. I think Jack should

address that one.

Yes?

Hello? Are we going to get a response on that

from staff?

EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: Jack or -- if -- Jack,

if you're -- if we can't hear you, Steve can you take it?

MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF KITOWSKI: I

hit unmute. Go.

MSCD ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF VERGIS: Hi. This

is Sydney Vergis again, Assistant Division Chief. So to

address your questions, I want to clarify that, yes, we

did not make any specific provisions for adoption by other

states baked into the regulation, but that certainly

doesn't preempt us from having those ongoing

conversations.

In terms of our work with other states, certainly

we've heard from NESCAUM and a variety of others we've

been working with, particularly under the intent -- the

memorandum of understanding that was referenced at the

December Board meeting. And we certainly recognize that

while California represents a large part of the national

market, it's certainly not just a California market, and

so that these partnerships will be critical moving


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

276

forward.

BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: Yeah. Even more, I

would -- so I would emphasize that we really make that a

top priority, because, you know, on top of what you just

said is the fact that we need to create a large industry.

You know, we need to get those scale economies. And so

bringing in other states and other countries is absolutely

fundamental to success for us. So I just want to

emphasize that.

The last thing I want to bring up is back to the

controversial topics are these near-ZEV credits. And I

feel like so many people brought that up, I feel the need

that, you know, to acknowledge that and to address it a

little bit.

And that is that as Chair Nichols said, we have a

separate low-NOx proceeding. And I think many of the

people that spoke were dancing around that reality. To

me, this ACT Rule is for both pollution and climate

change. And so I can imagine -- I'm going to suggest that

not now, but maybe staff and Board think about this as an

adjustment later on, is that we do have something that's a

little more performance based that says if someone can

bring forth a low carbon fuel, and can assure that a low

carbon fuel will be used, and it's very low NOx, then we

ought to be willing to consider that.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

277

And the -- there are a couple of caveats. One of

the reasons I think that is because despite what some say,

like Tesla, that, you know, that for sure we're going to

have battery electric long-haul trucks, I'm not quite

convinced how successful that will be.

And there's a very good likelihood -- I mean,

hydrogen might do the job, but there's a good possibility

we might want to use low carbon biofuels in those

long-haul trucks. And it's not a trivial part of the

market. And so sending a signal that there will be a

role. And so this is not necessarily remote natural --

renewable natural gas, I happen to think probably the

biofuel -- liquid biofuels are likely to be more important

and more promising.

But, you know, just looking at it from a

performance-based perspective, I suggest that we pursue

that idea, you, know in a future action, that -- that

manufacturers and consumers can meet it with very low

carbon fuels, and very low carbon pollution.

And I want to acknowledge -- one of the reasons I

don't feel this is urgent is because the reality is

there's not that much renewable natural gas, and it's

limited, and, in fact, there's a lot of arguments that

maybe it should be used in other applications rather than

transportation. So I don't get so excited about RNG right


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

278

now, but I do think that we ought to leave a path open for

some of these truck's market segments that could be very

challenging in the future.


I'm going to comment later, but I'd like to go to

other Board members next.

So Ms. Takvorian.

BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: Thank you.

I agree with Professor Sperling, this is

revolutionary. So we're excited to be here to get to

today. It's very different than where we were in

December. And I think we ought to really note that and

give a lot of kudos to everyone who helped us get here.

I think this is one of the most collaborative

efforts I've seen. I very much appreciate the NGO

community, the environmental and environmental justice

communities that came forward with an analyses and clear

statements about how they wanted to see this rule proceed,

and to staff for really, really listening, and for having

a whole set of workshops and conversations that have

really allowed us to get to a point where we're at twice

the number of ZEV trucks by 2035, than we were in the

original proposal. So, you know, let's savor that for a

minute and say congratulations to everyone.

And, you know, we were sitting in West Oakland


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

279

with hundreds, if not thousands, of trucks surrounding us

and -- we saw at the port. And we knew that that's

exactly the kind of community that really needs to have

relief. And now having -- continuing to live through the

COVID pandemic, we know that folks in communities like

West Oakland and other environmental justice communities,

and communities of color across the state are the most

impacted. And that this rule is -- when it gets

implemented is the rule that's going to be help to save

them from other attacks on their respiratory systems.

The crisis has really illuminated the need for

this ambitious rule and others that will follow to protect

the health of these Californians, all Californians,

because they actually have greater vulnerability and

mortality because of COVID-19.

And I guess I just -- also, the other thing I

really want to point out is that we should make no

mistake, this -- this rule advances racial justice. And

in a time when we are talking about that every day, we

need to recognize that these types of heavy-duty vehicles

disproportionately impact communities of color and

communities around ports, and this rule is going to give

some relief. It's not going to give the relief tomorrow,

but over time it really is. And I think that's something

to note and to celebrate.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

280

The other thing is I think that the CERPs that

have come forward so far, and those that are coming

forward, are relying on this rule. And they're relying on

other rules that are coming, but this one is critical. I

though in San Diego, the CERP that will come forward is

very focused on heavy-duty vehicles. And I know the other

ones are as well, so we have to do this as a Board, if we

want to have success within the 617 communities. It's

critical that we -- that we move this forward. And the

opportunity is really now for the port-adjacent

communities, because of so many of the trucks that are

going to be turning over in the 2020s.

And I also want to say, I think the environmental

justice communities have been very clear, that we're

looking at zero-emission vehicles, not near zero, but zero

emission. And I appreciate that there's other processes

that we can turn to for near zero as well.

I do think that one of the points that was raised

- I know it's important in San Diego - is the attention to

utility rates, electricity rates. And I look forward to

hoping that we can work with staff and with the CPUC to

really address those in the communities that are really

challenged by high rates.

So while I really support this rule, we also know

that it leaves communities at risk. And children born


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

281

today may not actually benefit from this rule in the --

and it doesn't achieve the State's climate goals. And

that's why I'm really appreciative of the last slide

that's in the staff's presentation that commits to, as far

as we can -- Chair Nichols has said, as far as we can, to

what the Board direction will be from 2035 for a hundred

percent for drayage at ports and railyards.

And I would want to include in that in

distribution centers and warehouses as well. And perhaps

we meant that, but I think that's really critical. And

then the other deadlines in there, I think are very

important as well.

I'd like to see us -- I want to ask staff if we

could come back to the Board in mid-2021 with a report on

the progress to date and the projects for the Fleet Rule

targets. I think we're going to learn a lot in the next

six months and I know everyone is anxious for that kind of

assurance. And I know you're going to have -- be having

workshops. So not to have the Fleet Rule ready, but to at

least have a progress report, so we can see where it's

going.

And, of course, I would be remiss if I didn't say

could we get the Fleet Rule back here as soon as humanly

possible with having a robust public participation

process. So, you know, I know what all the constraints


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

282

are, but I think it's really very important as folks have

said that we do that.

I also am looking at how we can consider earlier

requirements for new sources at ports and at distribution

centers. There's new bodies of work coming forward and to

the degree that we can, it would be good if we could

really get them started on a zero-emission path as soon as

they -- as they start their work.

And then lastly, I think it is very important

that we incorporate the labor standards and the

independent contractor protections into the Fleet Rule.

And I know you're thinking about that as well.

So a couple of questions in there in terms of

timing mostly. But again, congratulations to the staff

and to the communities who have worked so hard for this

and thanks so much.


Next up is Barbara Riordan.

BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Let me go back to live.

I am very supportive of this rule, but I want to

go back to infrastructure and the need for that, and my

great concern for it moving along at the same time. And I

want to draw the Board's attention to one of the earlier

speakers, Volvo. And Volvo has a project here in the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

283

Inland Empire, which serves the Ports of Long Beach and

L.A. It's a project that we have funded to, gosh, a level

of probably $45 million. And South Coast has

participated, as well as Volvo.

And I heard and I want to be sure that we

pursue -- they mentioned some difficulty in getting the

infrastructure put in place for the trucks that they're

bringing in for this demonstration project. They have

about 23 trucks that they're bringing in in the next --

this year and next year together, that we are very sure

that we aren't having problems that we can't overcome.

So I would encourage our staff to look into that,

and maybe I misunderstood, but I don't think I did. I

think there is an issue of infrastructure and it's

building out the infrastructure. And we're not talking

about a very long distance. We're talking about --

because those trucks are going to move from the ports into

the Inland Empire where the warehousing is.

So I would very much appreciate an emphasis on

infrastructure. I think that's so critical to the success

of this project before us, the electrification of our

trucking industry.

Thank you.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you, Ms. Riordan. I know

that the staff have been talking about how to improve or


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

284

accelerate our involvement in these issues, as was

indicated at the beginning by our friend Tyson from

GO-Biz. We do have other sister agencies that are working

on these issues as well. But a higher even more intense

level of coordination is clearly going to be necessary, if

we're going to get to where we need to go in a timely

fashion.

And so I know that staff has been looking at how

they might possibly address these issues in a more

forceful fashion from our own perspective as well. And I

see that Mr. Cliff is here. He's muted at the moment.

But if he wants to add anything to that at this point

maybe we could.

DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CLIFF: Thank you, Chair

Nichols.

CHAIR NICHOLS: There you go. Okay.

DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CLIFF: We take that

point and agree it's extremely important for us to deal

with the infrastructure concerns, not only for this rule,

but for others that are coming before you. And you'll

hear after this an update on our at-berth, which also has

infrastructure concerns, as well as other freight

light-duty vehicle and heavy-duty vehicle work that we're

going to be doing, that all rely on that infrastructure

being in place.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

285

So we are looking at ways that we can better

coordinate across CARB and with our -- our sister agencies

at the PUC and the Energy Commission, as well as electric

utilities, and other stakeholders to make sure that this

is successful. So we really appreciate that comment and

we hope to have a better way to coordinate across all of

those efforts very soon.

BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you very much.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. I believe we had Dr.

Sherriffs next.

BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: Thank you. Can you all

hear me okay?

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes.

BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: Okay. Ryan is nodding.

Great. You know, I also want to really thank --

their are obviously lots of folks to thank, but all of the

testimony and the patience of everyone involved in that.

And, you know, obviously thanking staff, but particularly

calling out Ryan in this age of not having any sports to

go to. Watching Ryan at work, it was like a sports event

as he was juggling --

(Laughter.)

BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: -- and handing the serve

and volley over there, so it was really wonderful.

But you did a great job, Ryan. Thank you. And


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

286

you really moved it along. You really moved it along,

because that was a lot to squeeze in, and really

acknowledging what a great job in terms of testimony how

much we learned from two minutes from each of the

presenters. It was really very well done. And thank

everyone for their being concise and sharing their passion

and information with us.

You know, it's already been pointed out, as

momentous as this is, and there is much to celebrate in

this, okay, party is over. This -- this -- this only

works because it obliges us to make very important

commitments as Diane Takvorian, as Dan Sperling, you know,

highlighted so well.

Yeah, we are committed to these fleet rules and

doing this as soon as possible. We are committed to

moving forward on infrastructure. We are committed to

getting the short-term, the immediate gains for air

quality from what's available already in technology for

low NOx.

And, you know, I was looking for something to

disagree with the eloquence of Diane Takvorian and Dan

Sperling, the one thing I would disagree, boy, fleets

mid-2021, that's a long way off when we think about the

kinds of commitments we're asking other people to make.

And we really need to be sure that's a very strong


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

287

commitment and that we continue to move forward on that,

because it is a lot of working parts. They are separate,

but they only succeed -- succeed together.

So, yes, momentous and great, great, great,

great, great obligation that we have committed to here.

So thank you.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Chair Nichols, I think you

are on mute.

Chair Nichols, can you hear me?

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes. Yes. Yes, I hear you.


CHAIR NICHOLS: I'm having a hard time. I was --

sorry, I was trying to say, because I don't have the list

of the Board members in front of me. When I called on

Steve Cliff, the Board members names went away.

And I've been trying to click on everything I can

think of and not getting those names coming up. I know

that Dr. Balmes wanted to speak. I'm not sure who else

did, but somebody else may have to do the calling on.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: I think, Mary, that Judy

and Hector were before me.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Then thank you for that.

Judy, you want to go next and then Hector.

BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL: Sure. Thank you very

much.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

288

This is really a bold step that we're taking

today. It seems natural that it would follow our Advanced

Clean Cars regulation that's been in place for a while.

And it seems appropriate that California is doing it.

It's really a privilege and an honor to be part of it.

And I'm very optimistic that we're going to accomplish a

lot with this rule.

I'm also pleased that we had people from other

states here to join us, because I think, as Dan said, it's

important that we have a broad coalition to go with this

on this adventure.

And CalETC also mentioned to me this pooling

possibility that Dan mentioned. I think it's something we

should look at in the future. I think it's good idea.

The task in front of us is daunting. We need

incentives and we're in a period of time when there isn't

a lot of money on the table, but we hope that will change.

We need investments in the infrastructure. And one

comment that came up regarding infrastructure that I think

we should pay attention to is can we get standardized

infrastructure. Some coalitions are working on that, but

I think that's important in order to have this be

successful. To the extent we can standardize for certain

classes, we should do that.

I know there's a lot of question about what kind


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

289

of sizes we need for batteries and for the chargers, but

that will get worked out as -- as the project proceeds.

The other thing is information. And as Barbara mentioned,

we have several pilot projects going on now with electric

trucks. And we should be paying attention to those to

inform what we do as we move into a more electrified

transportation world.

I'm very pleased that our resolution does mention

coordination with the Fleet Rule and with an Omnibus Rule.

And I understood when I talked with our staff about this,

that we expect to have a Fleet Rule in 2021. I think it's

important that we are moving forward with that very

quickly. And I think it's important that we try to track

what's in the Fleet Rule with what is in the mandated

manufacturing rule, the sales rules.

The item that came up again and again was the

near-zero low-NOx 0.02 engine. And I understood that this

rule is intended to be the zero-emission rule. And that

the Omnibus Rule is then going to be the rule that we use

for addressing internal combustion engines.

I had some questions, as I was listening to the

testimony about how that would work. I know staff has

told me there will be a credit program in the Omnibus

Rule. And I'll be interested in seeing what that credit

program is, and who's trading, and what the incentives


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

290

are, because I think it's really important that we are

able to use that low-NOx 0.02 engine for the near-term

reductions that we need. This is really important in the

South Coast, important in San Joaquin Valley, and

important in some of those other areas that were listed as

non-attainment on the SIP that we approved as our first

item today.

So I know that a lot of the people asked for us

to amend this rule to put in a new definition for near

zero that would include the low-NOx 0.02 engine. But in

talking with staff and listening to the testimony today, I

have concluded that this isn't the place for that, but I

think I'll be looking forward to that Omnibus rule, which

I understand is coming out within days, and that is where

we should be concentrating on that particular technology.

How can we accelerate it in the nonattainment

areas like San Joaquin and our -- and our South Coast, and

how can we use it as a near-term solution to get those NOx

reductions where they need to be for the federal air

quality requirements by 2023 and 2031.

And let's maximize that to the extent that we

can. That's a good technology. We really worked on

developing that, and CARB put some money into that. And I

don't think it should be abandoned. I think it's an

important technology that is useful for now. In the long


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

291

term, we know we want to go zero emissions, but that is a

useful technology for us to be focusing on now. And I

think we should continue to look at that carefully and

think how we can incentivize it for the near term

reductions.

Thank you.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Great.

Mr. De La Torre.

BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: Thank you, Chair

Nichols. I wanted to piggyback on the very opening from

staff and your comments Chair Nichols about where we are

in the process that -- that this isn't a stand-alone, that

it's the first of three. ACT, then we're going to have

the Omnibus low-NOx rule here in the next couple of

months, and then at some point in the next year and a

half, two years hopefully, we'll have that Fleet Rule.

And it's the package of those three that will send all the

signals we're trying to send to bridge ourselves away from

diesel.

That's what we're trying to do here and this is

just the first piece of it. There's also a fourth one,

which isn't in our control, but at the local district

level Indirect Source Rules will also be involved here. I

think Board Member Takvorian alluded to that as well. So

Three and a half regs in package over the next couple of


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

292

years that will drive us away from diesel. And it's

amazing that here we are in 2020 and we can see a path to

getting rid of diesel for heavy-duty purposes.

And so I look at this vote today as the first

piece of it. As Board Member Mitchell said, we will be

looking at low NOx -- 0.02 low NOx incentives going

forward. This is for zero in this particular regulation,

but I think it's very important that as we put the final

touches to this regulation, that we do have some language

that alludes to the package. I think it's pretty clear

from the Board that we see it as a package and that should

be reflected in the language of this regulation.

You know, nothing binding obviously, because we

don't want to anticipate what we're going to do in those

subsequent rulemakings, but we should reference them in

this package, and then obviously in each of the others

refer back to this, and the other components -- the other

three components total of this goods movement package for

trucks.

The other I think dynamic that we have, and I've

said it to staff, I've said it to a number of

stakeholders, I am obsessed with the 8,000 trucks at the

Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach that are going to be

out of compliance at the end of '22. And to me, we have

to do everything possible to make sure that those 8,000


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

293

trucks are not replaced by diesel. Because we're in this

transition to the future, we have this opportunity right

away with not a huge number of trucks relative to the

700,000, 800,000 that we have -- heavy-duty trucks that we

have in California that we do something with those 8,000

trucks to make sure that they are zero or near-zero and

not diesel.

And then also in some other sectors, the waste

hauling is one, street sweeping may be another. So we

need to think about some of these subsets that we should

start transitioning as soon as possible to zero or near

zero, because we just cannot continue to replace these

trucks with diesel. We know how long they last. We know

how much they spew into the atmosphere and into this

communities like the one I live in.

And so we need to make sure that we have that

transition queued up here in the short-term, even as we're

setting targets for the medium and long term.

Thank you.


Mr. Serna.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: I think I might be next.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Well, I have you after --

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Okay.

CHAIR NICHOLS: -- a couple of other people, but


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

294

if you think you're first -- you're next.

BOARD MEMBER SERNA: Dr. Balmes is first. Dr.

Balmes is first.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Go for it.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Thank you, Phil. And it's

in part because I have to also leave for a phone call.

I'll be back. Phone call at 4:00.

So I'll be quick, because I agree with a lot of

what my fellow Board members have said, but I want to

highlight a few points. And I'll start with saying how

proud I am of the staff's work in response to our December

call for a more ambitious ACT and for the engine

manufacturers and the other stakeholders on the

environmental side who have engaged with staff. And I do

agree with Dr. Sherriffs that it's a very robust process

that has I think been positive, because we need the -- to

continue to have a relationship with the engine

manufacturers as we move forward.

I'm glad that Dr. Sperling brought up the issue

of the ultra low-NOx trucks -- heavy-duty trucks, because

I also am skeptical that we're going to have a robust

heavy-duty electric market as fast as some people are

saying. I hope we do, but I think we have to have a

nearer term solution.

And I want to just highlight what Ms. Takvorian


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

295

said about how this is really an important environmental

justice and racial justice -- racial ethnic justice

resolution even that doesn't look like that on the

surface. And I think that the ultra low-NOx heavy-duty

vehicles are going to have to be a transition to protect

those disadvantaged communities until we really have a

robust heavy-duty zero-emission vehicle market.

And then I want to highlight one thing that -- or

one spin-off of what Mr. De La Torre said. I agree that

getting rid of -- well, making sure that the drayage

trucks of the future are zero emission is very important.

It's important in Oakland as well as the South Coast

Board.

But I don't want to forget what some of the

witnesses said about the workers, about the truck

drivers -- the so-called independent contractors. To me,

this is a crying shame. I realize we can't ourselves do

that much about it, but I think we should try to be as

intentional as possible to try to help these folks afford

the clean vehicles that we're going to make -- that we

have to make available to protect the community, because I

think it's nuts that the trucking companies foist these

costs onto the drivers.

And so I was very impressed with some of the

witnesses and I agree that this is big problem. So we


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

296

can't forget about the workers when we're trying to

improve the environment.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you. Go make your

call and we will next call on Mr. Serna.

BOARD MEMBER SERNA: Thank you, Chair Nichols.

Well, first of all, I want to add to the accolades and

appreciation for certainly all the folks that testified

today.

(Dog barking.)

BOARD MEMBER SERNA: Even the dog apparently.

(Laughter.)

CHAIR NICHOLS: He wants to be heard first.

(Laughter.)

BOARD MEMBER SERNA: I certainly want to extend

my thanks to staff. This is a long time coming. I think

we can all hear in the expressions by Board members that I

think we commonly believe this to be an important

milestone moment in terms of this particular rule and

it's -- and modifications to it.

One of the things I was kind of getting nervous

about is when I see a slide that says manufacturers are

launching products before the rule starts. That was part

of the presentation. And it always makes me think

critically about whether -- where we are in terms of a

regulatory agency that is largely charged with rule making


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

297

and implementing legislation, whether we're doing enough,

and is this really the product of doing -- in terms of

pressing the envelope or are we not doing -- you know,

should we be doing more?

One of the things, I guess it's in the form of a

question for staff, is -- and I did have a number of

questions around the Class 2b, 3 segment in particular.

But my question for staff I guess is, you know, we're

looking at this starting from the three-quarter ton pickup

forward to, you know, large semi-class 7, 8 tractors.

But what are -- what are we looking at that's

comparable to this effort that is really targeting the

largest segment of consumer -- or -- consumer purchases of

half-ton models of pickups, the F-150s, for instance?

It's great that we're -- we got such a broad

spectrum of classes that are under this rule, but what are

we doing relative to kind of the distance between say an

F-250, a Class 2b/3 diesel, 6.7 liter, and -- and ZEV

passenger vehicles? I don't know that I've seen something

comparable yet that's been discussed or presented. So I

just present that in the form of a question.

BOARD MEMBER SERNA: The silence is deafening.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes, I know. Mr. Corey, are you

prepared to respond or do you want to turn it to somebody

else.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

298

VICE CHAIR BERG: I think he was double duty on

looking at the schedule. So, Cliff --

CHAIR NICHOLS: Cliff, you're there. Steve is

there. Jack is -- Jack may be able to get off mute

finally.

(Laughter.)

CHAIR NICHOLS: He was stuck in mute.

DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CLIFF: We'll save Jack

for this one.

CHAIR NICHOLS: All right.

DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CLIFF: Mr. Serna --

Supervisor Serna, the light-duty trucks, the F-150 for

example that you mentioned would be in the Advanced Clean

Cars Regulations. And so as we discussed last month, we

actually, you know, are in the midst of developing those

rules and hoping to bring those back to the Board by the

end of next year. So that's something that we would be

looking at.

I think it's encouraging, especially knowing that

there is a consumer preference for the cross-over SUVs as

well as for light-duty trucks that are still serving in

the passenger category, that there is a lot of interest in

the zero-emissions vehicles in that space. So we're

seeing that not only from, you know, those who are putting

down payments on the Cybertruck that Tesla recently


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

299

announced, but also other categories like Rivian has a lot

of excitement around it. And, of course, some of the

other manufacturers have already announced product that is

upcoming.

So it's something that we're going to continue to

look at and it's an important issue. What we really need

to make sure that we do is not create an incentive for

pushing into one category or another and avoiding having

to do requirements by kind of trading across that

light-duty and heavy -- or medium-duty category. And we

know that's been an issue in the past, so it's something

that we're well aware of and looking to avoid.

BOARD MEMBER SERNA: And that's precisely --

thanks, Steve, for the response. That's precisely why I

asked the question now is when we don't -- if we let this

type of rule, regulation affect a set of -- segments of

the market well in advance and at some distance in time

from the next one, we know that consumers will naturally

gravitate to their preference. And if you don't give them

a broad spectrum of zero-emission opportunity, we can kind

of guess where maybe some of the more skeptical consumers

in this space might land.

And so it's not that we want to punitively, you

know, cut them off and limit their options. I think we

want to do exactly the opposite. We want to give them the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

300

widest amount -- spectrum of zero-emission options for

pickups in particular that we can across the different

sizes of pickups. That's the point I'm trying to --

trying to make here.

So I appreciate it. Thank you.

DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CLIFF: Thank you.

VICE CHAIR BERG: So I think the next Board

member is Nathan to comment.

BOARD MEMBER FLETCHER: Thank you. Thank you

very much. I can't claim, I don't think any longer, to be

a new Board member, but I can certainly, I think, still

lay claim to being the newest Board member. And I -- you

know, I just want to say I'm very proud to be a Board

member of the California Air Resources Board. I think the

issues we tackle and the work that we do is of vital

importance. And really, we are being leaders. And so I

just want to thank all of you who have been a part of

getting us here today over the years, and all the staff

and work that's been done certainly prior to me joining.

And I'm -- I'm very pleased to be a part of this

step forward that we're taking, understanding that this is

one piece of at least three parts that go together here,

but really personally taking to heart in a very meaningful

way how important the efforts around heavy-duty trucks

are.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

301

You know, it's been stated it's one-third of our

California NOx emissions. It's 20 percent of our

greenhouse gas emissions. And, you know, I've said this

before, but I represent a district in San Diego where the

environmental justice issues are very real. It's not just

statistics. It's the reality that in one part of the

district I represent a black baby born today will live ten

years less than a white baby born today in my same

supervisorial district. Certain parts of communities I

represent, AB 617 communities, will have asthma rates at

eight to ten times that of other parts.

And so the things that we're doing are going to

have a very real and meaningful impact on environmental

justice issues and public health costs, and actual lives

that are taken. I also think there is an economic

opportunity in front of us. It's certainly not going to

be without some impact or cost, but there's tremendous

savings to be had on the public health side, and there's

also the realization that close to 300,000 Californians

work in these industries and fields And as we can be

pioneers as a state, I think there's economic benefit to

us there.

So very pleased to support this. I do appreciate

the ability to move the role a little bit further sooner,

quicker, in terms of getting some of the impacts that we


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

302

desire.

And the only thing that I'd like to add is as we

move forward, particularly as the fleet things, it is very

important to me as a Board member that we take into effect

that I believe the burden of compliance needs to be on the

operators and not the independent contractors. I'm very

concerned about the exploitation of independent

contractors in our current economy. I know that there's a

lot of efforts underway to try and address that. But I am

very concerned about that, and I want to make sure as we

move forward with the Fleet Rules that the burden for

compliance is on the operators.

And so that is certainly something I will be

looking to as we move forward. But very pleased to

support this. And again, I just want to commend everyone

who's been working so hard on this for so long and am

pleased to join in and hopefully seeing its passage, and

look forward to the additional two efforts we have

surrounding this and everything else we'll do at CARB.

Thank you.

VICE CHAIR BERG: And I'll go ahead and jump in.

I, too, am very excited. You know, I've heard words like

"revolutionary", "bold step", "on the sides of history".

And those are all such true statements. And yet, as

someone who actually has to implement this rule at my


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

303

company, and look at, and understand how daunting a true

transformation is, I would really encourage us to look at

new ways.

The thing that comes to my mind is when we do the

same thing and expect different results. And this is

going to be just the same type of transformational

implementation in my mind as going to the moon. And it's

going to take that village of people that are just so

committed to overcome the barriers, to knockdown

challenges. And so for all of ours agencies and our

sister agencies, wouldn't it be great if we did have a

team of people that really were empowered to knockdown

these barriers from cities, to regions, to the state.

And so I look forward to participating as

somebody who will be buying electric trucks one day and

using them at my company. And so I am very, very excited

about that.

I had two things that I'd like just staff to just

clarify for me in the resolution. And that is the

reference of the fleets that we were going to have a

hundred percent by the years that we listed here. And I

just wanted to make sure that I understood that that's a

hundred percent of the purchases or the sales by that

time. So when we say a hundred percent zero-emission

fleet by -- for drayage trucks by 2035, we're speaking


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

304

that all sales, at that time, or are we thinking the full

fleet will turnover to a hundred percent by 2035. So it's

just a clarification.

And then also, as we are implementing, we talk

about the incentive programs, and we often refer to Low

Carbon Fuel Standard, which is a great instrument for

offsetting costs. But on the Class 2bs and 3s, a lot of

those might be charged at home or are going to be

projected to be charging at home, and how are we going

to -- those will go to the residential credits right at

this time. And so the nuances that we're going to have to

look at as we go down the road I think will be very

important as incentives of all types are going to be

critical.

And I do support so many of the things that my

fellow Board members were talking about, but especially in

the environmental justice. I'm really convicted[SIC]

right now, at this time, that words are important, but

actions are critical. And I hope that we have mechanisms

to absolutely track and to show the progress, even if it

takes many years. As Diane Takvorian said, this isn't

going to happen tomorrow, but we have to know that we're

making a difference in these communities and they are

getting healthier, and we have to have metrics. And so

I'll be looking forward to that as well.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

305

So thank you very much and I think the last Board

member, Chair Nichols, is John Gioia.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes. I was just about to call on

him. I got that far, but then I just found every time

I -- every time I click on participants, I get nothing but

Steve Cliff.

(Laughter.)

CHAIR NICHOLS: So I don't know what -- I don't

know what Steve has done to my computer, but whatever it

is.

(Laughter.)

DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CLIFF: (Thumb raised.)

VICE CHAIR BERG: He always likes to be first.

(Laughter.)

CHAIR NICHOLS: Some form of a takeover.

(Laughter.)

CHAIR NICHOLS: All right. Supervisor Gioia off

to you.

BOARD MEMBER GIOIA: Thanks. The advantage of

going at the end is I don't have to speak as long, because

I don't want to repeat what others have said, but just to

say this is clearly bold, and historic, and meaningful.

In a way I wish we could go further and I'm going

to make a suggestion about -- with the staff about the

resolution. I think a couple of those categories I'd


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

306

support five years sooner. And let me sort of explain

why. You know, I live and represent an AB 716 community,

Richmond. And in Contra Costa, we are actually moving

faster than this on our land-use conditions. And there's

sort of work -- they really work hand-in-hand.

There are proposals for two new large warehouses

in North Richmond, which is a highly impacted community

near a chemical plant, near a refinery, near a port. And

I've had discussions with FedEx. And they've agreed, and

I acknowledge that they're doing this, to some very

aggressive land-use conditions that we're putting into

effect.

That on day one when they open in 2021, that 50

percent of their delivery vans will be zero emission and

80 percent by 2025, with a hundred percent shortly after

that. And then any heavy-duty trucks domiciled at the

facility would be zero emission all by 2025, and they made

a commitment to that. And we basically said we're only

going to approve warehouses that bring in clean vehicles.

And one of the comments they made is but we want

to make sure that these vehicles are being manufactured,

so we can buy them and that they're available.

So I really am a strong believer that we need to

be working on both ends, right, the land-use end, where

we're requiring these n new facilities, and on the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

307

manufacturing end, so both demand and supply. I think

some speakers have referenced that.

And so, you know, those that would oppose this

will say there's no buyers out there. And then those that

oppose the land-use conditions, say they're not being

manufactured. So that's why we need both.

And I think given the shift to more eCommerce, we

are going to see even greater growth and need for zero

emission, because of the expansion of warehouses to

accommodate that growth.

So I don't know anybody that has -- is going --

has more aggressive land-use conditions. Maybe there are

and that would be great. And so I'm actually wondering,

you know, the delivery vans, why doesn't -- which I -- is

a major growth area. Already the vans are being

manufactured. There's already commitments. And I think

CARB's Freight Handbook which hopefully will get finalized

and out will have this as a -- as a -- as a land-use

condition, requiring these zero-emission delivery vans for

new facilities.

So I think we -- I think -- I agree with those

who would say that we should be -- we should -- we should

be aggressive in our goals in the resolution as well, and

really move up the delivery vehicles and the refuse. But

frankly, I think the delivery I see as a -- as a good


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

308

opportunity to 2035, as well as utility and government

fleets to 2035.

Government is willing -- I know government is

anxious and wants to take action, so why not move up those

dates to 2035, so they're the same as the drayage date?

Can staff respond to that?


I'm going to try the unmute button for the third

time. Is this working okay?

EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: We got you, Jack. Go

ahead.


Thanks. Well, I'll say we did set -- we set

these goals to be aggressive and bold, and we do think

they are. Supervisor, I think you've picked out the ones

first- and last-mile delivery. Of the ones in this list

that could possibly be moved up, I think that probably is

the one that I would say has an opportunity to do that.

But it is -- you know, what we were trying to

balance was vehicles that are being purchased and making

sure they had continued life for those that are being

purchased in the -- in the near term.

This is a hundred percent of the fleet at that

time period. So those are still aggressive goals that

we're setting here for ourselves. And there are a number


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

309

of, I'll say, just unique first- and last-mile delivery.

Some of the -- we call them last -- first- and last-mile

delivery, but some of them go quite distance, and so we

were trying to be a little protective. But that is one

that if that's the consensus of the Board, we could move

up.

CHAIR NICHOLS: But Jack, we have some issues

about timing here, don't we, in terms of making any

further changes in the rule?

BOARD MEMBER GIOIA: But this is the resolution.

This would be in the resolution, right?


Right. We wouldn't -- we would not make --

basically, the ACT Rule as we're setting forth would stay

the same.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes, yes.


The modification to the resolution is something

that --

CHAIR NICHOLS: Well, there are a couple of items

that people have raised for the resolution, so maybe we

should -- that's --

BOARD MEMBER GIOIA: So I'll put that on the list

of moving up -- that up to 2035 -- moving actually up

government fleets, and delivery, and the first/last mile.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

310


Government fleets are quite diverse. And, you

know, I'm not prepared to say, at this point, that that is

a -- is feasible. I think what we're doing -- maybe the

best way for me to state this is when we go to the fleet

rules, and we start going through the fleet rules and

really digest each of these, we will move as quickly as

possible. And if we find we can move quicker, we

absolutely will.

And so maybe that's the way to bring our

commitment to the Board, that maybe we could leave these

where they're at, but we will make a personal commitment

to you, that if we find that we can move these quicker, we

don't get bound and say, oh, we have till 2040, but rather

that if we find there's an opportunity there, we will take

advantage of that, and attempt to do that, and bring that

back to you.

CHAIR NICHOLS: So that would affect the

purchasing requirement, as opposed to the manufacturing

requirement, if we were to let that go at this point.


Correct. I mean, we could --

EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: That's correct, Mary.


Yes, we could leave this where it is at and still


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

311

commit to you to accelerate it, if we find, while we're

going through the fleet rules, that it's feasible.

BOARD MEMBER GIOIA: But, Jack, the delivery van

is so important to communities, because that's where the

warehouses -- they're working out of warehouses, so

they're concentrated. They're going back and forth into

communities. If it seems that that -- having an

aggressive goal at least that we work toward there.


No, I absolutely understand your point. And the

point we -- the Board made to us in December that we're

taking very seriously as well is that as we develop these

fleet rues that we emphasize disadvantaged communities and

getting emissions benefits within disadvantaged

communities as quickly as possible. So we absolutely will

overlay those two. And there certainly is synergy with

those two comments.

CHAIR NICHOLS: So I understand Mr. Gioia's point

about the Freight Handbook, which is hung up somewhere

over in Office of Planning and Research, I believe, and

the need for jurisdiction, such as his, that do permitting

for facilities to have something to point to and have the

backup for it, when they -- when they want to insist that

facilities commit to having only zero-emission vehicles

for these kinds of purposes.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

312

And if we could strengthen the language in this

rule -- the resolution -- not in the rule, but in the

resolution, would that -- would that make a difference?

BOARD MEMBER GIOIA: Yes. It's always helpful in

local government to point to something like that. Yes, I

can tell you that, because we've -- you know, it's --

we're able to do it, because I'm -- I'm familiar with what

CARB is doing. But, you know, it's important to help

those jurisdictions that don't have that connection who

want to do this.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Is there any objection to

including that language then in the resolution?

Seeing none. I think we could just go ahead and

do that. Thank you.

VICE CHAIR BERG: And then Chair Nichols I

think --

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes.

VICE CHAIR BERG: -- Alex Sherriffs has his hands

up -- hand up. Did you want to make a comment, Alex?

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes.

BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: No. I just wanted --

wanted to endorse that and also whether, in the

resolution, again, as a goal, that we're going to try and

get the Fleet Rule out in 2021 not 2022, in order to

support what we've accomplished here today. It's


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

313

obviously a complex process, so it's not --

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes.

BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: -- cast in stone, but

that, yes, this is -- we are all committed to this. We're

going to try and -- we're going to do everything we can to

make that work sooner.

CHAIR NICHOLS: So without objection, we will add

that language to the -- to the resolution. Is there --

BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: Thank you.

CHAIR NICHOLS: You're welcome.

(Laughter.)

CHAIR NICHOLS: Anything else?

If not, you know, we have two other items on our

agenda for today and a court reporter who needs to take a

break. So I'd kind of like to bring this to a -- to a

vote. I just want to add a couple of thoughts, I guess.

Not much really. I don't need to say anything

more about the historic nature of what we're doing. It is

clear this is the first of its kind in the world. It's

part of a long line of groundbreaking actions that this

Board has taken to protect our air, but it's -- it is a

very important one, given its particular relevance for low

income and communities of color, and the fact that it's

just been so hard to get a grip on this particular

category of vehicles, because they are so critical to the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

314

economy, and because diesel vehicles last a very long

time, and turnover very slowly.

So I'm honored to have been called out by my

colleague, Dan Sperling, for having mentored him on this

issue of putting a stake in the ground. But I -- I mean

it seriously when I say that planting a flag for zero here

and reiterating, as we have, that we mean zero, not just

almost zero, but zero as the goal, and that we're taking

every step we can to get there, is going to be the way we

get there.

Without it, we won't or we won't for even longer

than it will take us, if we create the goals, and if we

maintain our vigilance about monitoring how this plays out

in the real world and our ability to be flexible if need

be.

I was listening with some concern to the

testimony from the manufacturers of vehicles that use

other fuels, natural gas, propane, et cetera, thinking,

you know, we're not in a position, and I don't really

think anything we're doing here is causing harm to those

industries. Our goal is not to put them out of business.

Our goal is to make a transition happen that everybody

those is happening and needs to happen, but not to have

the heavy hand of the past weighing us down and pulling us

back from making the changes that need to be made.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

315

So I think the Board has indicated their desire

and willingness to move forward here. And I'd just like

to ask for a motion and a second, and have the clerk go

ahead and call the roll.

BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: So moved.

BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: Second.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Mr. Clerk, would you

please call the roll?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Yes, Chair.

Dr. Balmes?

Mr. De La Torre?


BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Mr. Eisenhut?


BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Supervisor Fletcher?

BOARD MEMBER FLETCHER: Fletcher, aye.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Senator Florez?



BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: He's got his mute on.

VICE CHAIR BERG: He's mute.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Supervisor?

CHAIR NICHOLS: John, you need to unmute.

(Laughter.)



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

316

BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL: Aye.








BOARD MEMBER SPERLING: (Thumbs up.)


BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: Aye.




CHAIR NICHOLS: Aye.

BOARD MEMBER GIOIA: Aye. I was on mute. Sorry.

CHAIR NICHOLS: We got you.


passes.

CHAIR NICHOLS: All right.

VICE CHAIR BERG: So for the --

(Yeas)

VICE CHAIR BEG: Madam Chair, for the court

reporter --

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes, we're going to take a break.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

317

VICE CHAIR BERG: -- we had Diane Takvorian as

the first -- making the motion and who was the second,

because they didn't identify?

CHAIR NICHOLS: I heard Alex --

VICE CHAIR BERG: Alex Sheriffs was the second.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Alex gets credit for being the

second.

VICE CHAIR BERG: Thank you. Yeah, that will be

great for the court reporter. Thank you very much.

CHAIR NICHOLS: All right. Thank you, Sandy.

All right. And for the court reporter and

ourselves, we're going to take a ten-minute break. We

will be back at 20 past 4:00 and proceed with the At Berth

Rule.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Sounds good. Thank you,

Madam Chair. I'll remind everyone to please mute their

microphones and turn of the video, and we'll be back at

4:20.

Thank you.

(Off record: 4:11 p.m.)

(Thereupon a recess was taken.)

(On record: 4:21 p.m.)

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Great. All right,

everybody, the Board is back in session.

The next item on the agenda is item number


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

318

20-6-4, an informational update on control measures for

ocean-going vessels at-berth.

If you wish to comment on this item, please click

the raise hand button or dial star nine now, and we will

call on you when we get to the public comment portion of

the item.

Today, the Board is going to be hearing about

progress that's been made on a proposal for expanding

emissions reductions from ocean-going vessels at-berth.

Over the past few months, we've seen the effects of the

public health crisis that continues to impact global

health and the economy. As we look toward the new normal,

we must continue investing in transitioning the way we

move freight to cleaner zero-emission technologies.

We certainly took a major step in that direction

just a few minutes ago, but there was much more to be

done.

Further, reducing emissions from ocean-going

vessels at-berth will provide much needed emissions

reductions and public heath benefits to port communities

that are already heavily burdened by air pollution from

the port activities. And it will also -- also related

freight sources, which is even more critical as

respiratory illness continues to spread not only in

California, but around the world.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

319

Mr. Corey, would you please introduce this item?

EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: Yes. Thanks, Chair.

So over the past 30 years, CARB, local air districts, and

the federal pollution control programs have made

substantial progress towards improving air quality in

California.

However, as noted, despite this progress, some

areas in California still exceed health-based air quality

standards for ozone and particulate matter. Many

communities surrounding California's ports are AB 617

selected communities and are recognized as disadvantaged

in part due to impacts from freight-related air pollution.

In 2007, the Board approved the Airborne Toxic

Control Measure for ocean-going vessels at-berth. The

regulation has been highly effective at reducing emissions

from container, refrigerated cargo or reefers, and cruise

vessels while docked at six ports across California.

At the December 5th 2019 Board hearing, staff

presented a new draft at-berth control measure that would

expand the already successful program. The proposed

regulation increases the number of vessel visits that

achieved emission reductions from already regulated

categories and adds new vessel categories, additional

ports, and marine terminals, as regulated parties.

Since that December Board meeting, a lot has


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

320

happened. In response, to Board direction and comments

received during the 45-day commend period, staff has made

modifications to the original proposed regulation. Those

modifications were released March 26th 2020 through what

is referred to as the 15-day change process. Although, it

was released for a 30-day extended comment period.

You're also very aware the world has been dealing

with the pandemic and staff has been tracking both the

impacts -- those associated impacts. So today, we're

providing with you an update on our progress and are

seeking your perspective regarding additional potential

changes that provide added flexibility while maintaining

the health benefits of the proposal.

I'll now ask Nicole Light Densberger of the

Transportation and Toxics Division to give the staff

presentation.

Nicole.



TTD STAFF AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST DENSBERGER:

Thank you, Mr. Corey. Good afternoon, Chair

Nichols and members of the Board. During today's

presentation, we will discuss with you the updates that

staff made to the proposed regulation based on the Board's

direction during the December 5th, 2019 Board hearing and


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

321

we'll also provide a brief summary of the comments

received on staff's proposed 15-day changes package.

Also, in light of many circumstances that have

changed in our world, since we were last here in front of

you, we would like to touch on the industry impacts that

we are seeing as a result of COVID-19 and have a

discussion with you about how we should proceed moving

forward.

--o0o--


When staff brought the existing At-Berth

Regulation to the Board in 2007, it faced much of the same

opposition as our current proposal does today. But six

years into implementation, this regulation is proving a

success at reducing NOx and PM emissions from vessels as

berth.

Our state's ports, terminals, and regulated

fleets visiting California have stepped up and made the

necessary investments that are needed to accomplish the

goals of the regulation, in some cases with the help of

State incentive funding. And since implementation of the

regulation began in 2014, we've seen emissions reductions

from over 13,000 vessel visits.

The At-Berth Regulation is a ground-breaking

regulation. It's the only one like it in the world. The


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

322

challenges and successes of this regulation are being

closely monitored globally, and it's driving change in the

maritime sector. Since the implementation of the existing

rule, other states in the U.S. and other countries,

including the European Union and China, have begun

installing shore power for cargo and cruise vessels at

their ports. And some are also exploring capture and

control technologies for tanker vessels.

--o0o--


While the existing regulation has seen reductions

in NOx and PM emissions from container, reefer, and cruise

vessels at our state's largest ports, our port communities

are still experiencing health impacts, and there are no

additional measures on the books to continue reducing the

remaining health burdens associated with ocean-going

vessels at berth.

The current pandemic our country is facing has

also further served to remind CARB staff of the risk that

air pollution brings to vulnerable Californians. People

suffering from asthma and other health disorders, may be

more susceptible to illnesses like COVID-19, particularly

those with conditions that impact the lungs.

With many of California's ports and terminals

surrounded by densely populated areas and in close


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

323

proximity to disadvantaged communities, further reducing

emissions from ocean-going vessels at berth is perhaps

more important than ever.

--o0o--


The key elements of staff's proposal are shown

here on slide 4 as a refresher. As the proposal stands

right now, the new At-Berth Regulation would take effect

on January 1, 2021. The regulation would phase in by

vessel category through 2027, reducing at-berth emissions

from container, reefer, cruise, ro-ro, and tanker vessels

once fully implemented.

The current proposal would increase the number --

the total number of vessel visits, reducing emissions per

year from around 4,000 vessel visits to over 6,000 visits

per year.

Safeguards in the form of vessel and terminal

incident events and the remediation fund remain in the

proposal and an alternative compliance option called

Innovative Concepts was added to allow for lower cost

equivalent emission reductions to be used as a pathway for

compliance as long as regulated entities can prove that

the projects provide equivalent benefits.

--o0o--



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

324

As mentioned CARB staff presented our initial

proposal in front of the Board this past December in West

Oakland and received direction to accelerate the health

benefits of this regulation.

Staff held a webinar on January 30th, 2020 to

walk stakeholders through the proposed changes to the

regulation language. The changes were released for an

extended comment period that ran from March 26th until May

1st of this year to take advantage of the extension

provided by Governor Newsom to provide more time to work

with stakeholders.

--o0o--


Slide 6 highlights the key proposed changes that

staff developed in response to the Board's direction this

past December. These changes include accelerated

implementation dates for tanker and ro-ro vessels,

development of the Innovate Concept compliance option,

strengthening of the interim evaluation, and

clarifications and updates to the regulation text that

include adjusting of the reporting time frames and the

amount of time that a vessel has to connect to an

emissions control technology.

--o0o--



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

325

The projected NOx reductions of 46 percent and

diesel PM reductions of 52 percent at full implementation

of staff's latest proposal are shown on slide 7. These

two pollutants are highlighted because of the importance

of reducing NOx to meet State Implementation Plan goals,

particularly in areas like the South Coast and the need to

reduce cancer-causing diesel PM to lower near-source

cancer risk for portside communities.

--o0o--


Staff's current proposal is expected to result in

significant health benefits with around a 55 percent

decrease in potential cancer risk from vessels at berth at

the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and in Richmond.

--o0o--


In addition to a reduction in potential cancer

risk, staff's proposal is also expected to result in 250

avoided premature deaths, reduced hospital visits and

emergency room visits, as well as a reduction in exposure

levels. For example, staff's health analysis for the

South Coast shows reductions in cancer risk to around 3.7

million residents, about 2.2 million of which are in


As we discussed with you in December, the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

326

monetized statewide health benefits outweigh the cost of

the regulation. And there are additional health benefits

associated with the emissions reductions achieved by the

proposal that are currently not monetized.

As CARB's Research Division presented to the

Board in April of this year, some of those factors that

are not currently monetized include asthma exacerbations,

work loss days, school loss days, brain health, birth

outcomes, and cancer risk.

Figuring out how to monetize these additional

benefits is key in performing a truer assessment of the

overall benefits of regulatory efforts such as this one.

--o0o--


Now, for the remainder of this presentation,

we're going to focus on the comments that staff received

from stakeholders in regards to both the changes we've

discussed with you today, as well as the impacts

stakeholders are seeing as a result of the economic

downturn associated with the current pandemic situation.

In total, staff received 80 comment letters on

the proposed 15-day changes. And the key comments are

highlighted here on this slide. You will likely hear from

stakeholders today that the implementation dates are

either too soon or not soon enough. You may also hear


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

327

that the Innovate Concepts Compliance Option is useful and

a welcome addition to the proposal, but you may also hear

that it brings an element of uncertainty to regulate --

regulated entities.

And lastly, Board, you'll also likely hear

requests today asking to delay the rulemaking due to the

economic downturn. And while staff understands that the

shipping industry has seen significant impacts related to

the pandemic, we also believe there's a path forward

without pausing the At Berth Rulemaking. And we will

discuss the impacts we're seeing and a potential path

forward in slides 11, 12, and 13.

--o0o--


First, we'll look at the impacts to the currently

regulated vessel categories. We've seen impacts to both

container and cruise vessels, with the cruise industry

being hit the hardest as shown here on slide 11. As you

may be aware, cruise vessels stopped sailing in April and

it remains to be seen when they may resume sailing in and

out of California this year.

Numerous stakeholders have requested that we

consider allowing the currently regulated container,

reefer, and cruise vessels to remain under the existing

regulatory requirements while they're dealing with the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

328

impacts of the economic downturn.

Now since these vessel types are currently

regulated with an 80 percent control requirement, staff

would like to discuss with the Board the potential for

adjusting the starting implementation date under the

proposed regulation to 2023 to allow for some additional

time for these vessel sectors to recover from the current

economic conditions.

This change is not expected to result in any

significant impacts to the emissions reductions achieved

over the next two years, as the control requirements for

both the existing regulation and proposed regulation would

be at similar levels for 2021 and 222.

--o0o--


And next let's discuss the ro-ros. So slide 12

highlights the impacts to ro-ro vessels calling

California, largely as a result of declining automobile

sales associated with the current uncertain economic

conditions.

New car purchases are forecast to recover slowly,

meaning that ro-ro terminals are likely to see fewer

vessels visiting. Historically, past recoveries have

shown it takes around three to four years for ro-ro vessel

visits to return to previous levels. And general


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

329

forecasts for auto sales show a recovery to pre-recession

levels occurring around the year 2025.

In terms of emissions, we're already seeing

reductions from the ro-ro sector due to the decrease in

the number of vessel visits and we expect that to continue

for some time.

Now, staff would like to discuss with the Board

the potential for restoring the ro-ro implementation date

to 2025, as initially outlined in the December 2019

proposal. Due to the decrease in emissions that we're

getting from the current economic downturn, staff

anticipate that shifting the ro-ro date by one year would

have minimal to no impact to the overall emissions

reductions achieved by the regulation.

--o0o--


Moving on to our final vessel category, slide 13

highlights the impacts to tanker vessels. While tankers

have been impacted by the current economic conditions,

with crude oil imports dipping as people stay at home,

we're already starting to see increases in crude imports

in May and June, and demand is expected to continue

recovering as more people resume normal daily operations.

And because this sector is already starting to

see a positive trend and the implementation dates for


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

330

tanker vessels and terminals are four to six years away,

and also due to the fact that tanker emissions make up

around half of the remaining ocean-going vessel at-berth

emissions as shown here on this slide, staff would like to

discuss with the Board maintaining the accelerated time

lines for tanker vessels.

In addition, the innovate concept compliance

option was requested by industry and the ports and tanker

stakeholders have indicated that they would use the

alternative compliance option in the early years.

--o0o--


Slide 14 shows an example of a possible

alternative project that could potentially be used through

the innovative concept provision. Projects, such as the

example shown here, are designed to provide an additional

compliance option, and are anticipated to help regulated

entities like tanker terminals begin reducing emissions

within the accelerated time frame proposed by staff, if

they do not wish to or are unable to install controls that

require infrastructure changes at their berths.

In this example, replacing four dirtier line-haul

locomotives with cleaner tier 4 locomotives could be

equivalent to a tanker terminal controlling at-berth

emissions from about 70 vessel visits a year. Currently,


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

331

the proposed regulatory language provides for a three-year

approval time frame that allows for an extension every

three years, as long as the emissions reductions achieved

continue to be equivalent or greater than those required

by the regulation and are additional to any other existing

requirements.

While the three-year period was designed to

ensure that the expected emissions reductions are still

early and extra to any other existing regulations, staff

have received comments that this three-year period causes

uncertainty on the part of regulated entities. So

extending that time frame up to five years would still

allow staff the opportunity to evaluate the regulatory

horizon and determine if emissions are, in fact, surplus.

As such, we'd like to discuss with the Board if

the approval period for innovative concepts should be

extended.

--o0o--


As needed, based on our discussions here today,

staff will follow up with stakeholders accordingly about

any potential adjustments to be made to the proposal and

would prepare another 15-day change package, if directed.

And we will need to return to the Board for a final vote

by August in order to meet our deadline to submit the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

332

regulator package to the Office of Administrative Law.

Thank you for your time and we welcome any

questions or comments you might have.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Okay. It sounds as though

we're ready to turn to public testimony at this point.

But if there any questions before we hear from the public,

we could entertain those now. Does anybody have any

questions about what is -- what staff is actually

proposing here?

Seeing none. Let's just turn to those who've

signed up to speak. And we're going to give you two

minutes again. Yes, I see you've already anticipated

that. Great.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Thank you, Chair Nichols.

We have 35 commenters who currently wish to speak at this

time. If you verbally -- if you want to verbally comment

on this Board item, please raise your hand or dial star

nine now. And I apologize in advance if I mispronounce

your name.

So our first three commenters are Bill Magavern,

Catherine Reheis-Boyd, and Peter Warren. Bill, I have

activated your microphone. You can begin.

MR. MAGAVERN: Thank you. Bill Magavern with the

Coalition for Clean Air. We think that the Board had a

full discussion of this issue in December. And the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

333

proposal that the staff came up with follows the Board

direction, and therefore, it should be adopted without

weakening, and as soon as possible.

This proposal would yield almost two and a half

billion dollars in health benefits. And as the staff

presentation acknowledged that actually undercounts the

health benefits. It would avoid 250 premature deaths.

And when we look at the impacts of freight, those impacts

are not distributed equally. They fall disproportionately

on the low-income communities of color that are near the

ports in this case, whereas the benefits go to the

companies that are moving the goods and to people who are

consuming the goods, who are all over the Western United

States. And certainly the folks in those port communities

are not the main consumers of the goods.

So from an equity standpoint, it's absolutely

vital that we take these emission reduction steps. This

updated schedule will save lives. We do want to emphasize

that with the innovative concepts, we don't oppose them,

as long as they retain the crucial safeguards that are

built in.

You, as the Air Resources Board, and the air

districts are counting on these emission reductions in

your State Implementation Plan. They are necessary and

these disadvantaged communities are also counting on these


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

334

reductions.

So this is not a time to falter in the path to

clean air. And this should be adopted no later than

August. Thank you very much.


Catherine, I have activated your microphone.

Pease begin your testimony.

Catherine are you there? Catherine Reheis-Boyd?

MS. REHEIS-BOYD: Yes, Ryan. Can you hear me?


MS. REHEIS-BOYD: Oh, great. Good afternoon,

Chair Nichols and members of the Board. My name is

Catherine Reheis-Boyd and I'm President of the Western

States Petroleum Association, representing the tanker and

related marine terminals subject to this regulation. We

are fully supportive of achieving emission reductions in

port communities. This is a very challenging regulation,

so I'm going to touch on three elements and I have three

recommendations.

First, emission reduction options. Due to safety

concerns and controlling tanker emissions, we asked for an

alternative compliance option that would allow reducing

emissions equivalent to, but in lieu of, compliance with

vessel-based requirements. Unfortunately, the innovative

concepts added here impose limiting conditions, which make


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

335

it frankly unworkable. We recommend CARB adopt the

framework in our March 6th letter, including that

reductions be surplus at the time when the innovative

concept measure is in place and not when a new regulation

is adopted it removes the credit.

Second, the timeline. The-15 day package

accelerated deadlines by two years. The prior deadlines

were already infeasibly short and the new deadlines only

exasperate the problem. We recommend CARB restore the

vessel control and plan deadlines or the pre-15-day

package version and look at incentives for early emission

reductions.

Last, feasibility study. A feasibility study for

tankers involving registered, international, safety,

classification, society organizations is necessary to

avoid serious safety concerns associated with CARB's

proposed control technology. We want CARB to be part of

this process. We request also that the feasibility study

findings be brought back to the Board so that you can see

the findings for yourself.

We all know future technology for tankers is

coming. The world maritime organization is working on a

variety of technologies, which will be targeting new

builds. So let's -- let's use whatever time you allow us

going forward to improve this reg, so it's safe, feasible,


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

336

flexible, provides community reductions as early as

possible, and as cost effective as possible.



Our next speaker is Peter Warren. After Peter,

will be Will Barrett, Jesse Marquez, and David Wooley.

Peter, I have activated your microphone. You can

unmute yourself and begin your testimony.

Peter Warren, are you there?

MR. WARREN: There we go.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Yep, we can hear you.

MR. WARREN: I speak -- I speak for San Pedro and

Peninsula Homeowners Coalition and Indivisible San Pedro.

We support implementing the at-berth rule update without

further revision or delay. They are overdue. We are

concerned that longtime opponents of emission controls

have suddenly discovered COVID-19, claiming a new

environment and an opaque future dictate rethinking the

proposals. Their cynicism and opportunism is

breathtaking.

This new environment is killing people. That is

a certainty. Rather than support delay, the pandemic

underscores the need for tough regulation, that's because

Californians whose health is damaged by goods movement

driven pollution. Those with lung, asthma, heart,


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

337

cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure are the very

people who are most susceptible to COVID and most likely

to die from it. The current At-Berth Regulation has been

effective.

The December proposal would save lives -- save

lives and money, as well as provide significant and

widespread health benefits. The answer to those who would

use the pandemic to undermine those rules is shame on you.

It would be particularly wrong-headed and disgraceful to

delay the original at-berth update because of the

pandemic, which is not going away this year or next or

maybe in our lifetimes.

Secondly, there's no connection between the

proposed regulations and a feared decline in business at

the twin ports. Note the Port of Long Beach reported an

increase May over May last year -- this year. You could

cut emissions rules entirely and it would not fix any

looming shipping recession, which is caused by the

worldwide pandemic. The fix is defeating the virus.

This cynicism is to be expected from goods

movement. They subscribe to disaster capitalism, which

exploits any catastrophe to externalize costs at the

expense of people's health. Environmental justice demands

you go ahead timely with these proposals. To be clear,

the public health benefits outweigh the cost.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

338

This is an environmental justice moment and to

ignore that would do further injury to millions of

Californians.

Finally, these rules ignore --


MR. WARREN: -- the dozens of tankers at anchor

off our ports spewing poll --

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Please wrap it up.

MR. WARREN: -- spewing pollution without any

mitigation for months now.


Our next speaker is Will Barrett. Will, I have


MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Ryan. I appreciate it.

My name is Will Barrett. I'm the director for Clean Air

Advocacy for the American Lung Association, and I'm happy

to be speaking with you again today about this critical

rule. I'm speaking in support of the rule as it's

proposed after the thorough discussion at the December

hearing in Oakland.

We think that the discussion there certainly was

robust. And you heard from the Lung Association and other

of our health partners and Dr. Anita Tucker who all were

calling for strong action to reduce the unacceptable

health risks associated with ship idling at California


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

339

ports.

We called for strengthening changes at that

hearing and we're heartened by the changes to advance the

time lines and the associated health benefits as the rule

became stronger. We strongly supported those advanced

time lines, because we know we need to act as quickly as

possible to protect public health especially from the

diesel exhaust coming out of ships at our ports,

especially in terms of the tankers that dominate the PM

inventory.

I wanted to note that an additional real benefit

of this rule is that it's going to add additional port

facilities to the protective nature of the emission

reductions. One example is in Stockton in the community

just at the -- adjacent to the Port of Stockton. The

residents are in the 97th percentile for asthma rates in

California, according to CalEnviroScreen.

Residents near the Port of Stockton on and the

additional ports need to be protected and deserve to be

protected as soon as possible through this rule. The

benefits of this rule outweigh the cost of compliance,

sparing disadvantaged communities from significant lung

health, heart health, and premature deaths, and cancer

risks.

The proposal does fail to address full suite of


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

340

health benefits as noted in the presentation. We know

that there are numerous benefits that are not monetized

and numerous benefits and pollution impacts that are not

captured in the assessment. So we do urge you to adopt

the rule without weakening provisions. We need to capture

the emission benefits outlined in the proposed rule coming

out of the December hearing.

Thank you for taking our time -- the time to

listen and we look forward to you adopting a strong rule

in August.

Thank you.


Our next speaker, Jesse Marquez. Jesse, I have


begin.

Jesse, are you there?

MR. MARQUEZ: Okay. Hello. Good afternoon. I'm

Jesse Marquez. I'm the Founder and Executive Director of

the Coalition for a Safe Environment in Wilmington,

California, where the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of

Long Beach are neighbors.

Yes, we want to move forward in the rule.

However, staff made numerous changes from the December

draft that we had reviewed before. Many of these changes

no environmental justice organization requested nor the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

341

public, but they were back-room deals discussed with Port

staff, and unfortunately they got into our -- this

regulations which is bothering us very much right now.

The problem we see is that some of these

exemptions are asking for an extensions impact

environmental justice communities the most. For example,

we have requested and we want that CARB establish a ship

emissions control technology certification protocol and

procedures. We don't want to play games. We want to know

exactly what technology is going to be approved. We don't

want a strategy. We don't want innovative concepts.

We want you to approve zero-emission

technologies, and we want you to certify them. We want

you to approve emissions capture and treatment

technologies and we want them to be certified. We want

all ship categories to be included. They have

intentionally continued to avoid the dry bulk, bulk

loading, and general cargo type ships. We want them to be

included.

We do not want CAPCOA to be part of the

remediation fund. There are adequate nonprofit

foundations such as the Harbor Community Benefit

Foundation and the Rose Foundation who have this

responsibility. CAPCOA, 90 percent of the past -- 90

percent of the time in past history has never supported


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

342

our environmental justice communities in our requests, our

petitions, our reviews, or anything of that nature, and we

have no vote of confidence in them.

We do not want to extend any time for any extra

days or hours to do any reporting or compliance.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Sir.

MR. MARQUEZ: I've also submitted written public

comments that I ask that you review.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is David Wooley. After David,

we have Regina Hsu, Janet Rogers, and Pat Pressel.

Davie, I have activated your microphone. You can


MR. WOOLEY: Good afternoon, everyone. I'm David

Wooley. I'm the Director of the Environmental Center at

the Goldman School of Public Policy, UC Berkeley. And I

want to urge the Board to approve and implement the -- as

soon as possible without delay, the regulation as proposed

after the December Board meeting, which I attended and

spoke at.

I want to relate very quickly some experience

that we've gotten from the electrification advocacy we've

been doing at the Port of Oakland in the context of AB

617. And partly this is all driven, of course, by the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

343

well known disproportionate impact of diesel pollution and

transportation pollutants on communities of color.

And the point I want to make here is that this is

actually a very good time to implement this rule for

several reasons. One, typically, you're going to need

some infrastructure for electrification or other -- other

control measures.

Periods of low cargo intensity are the best time

to do that. It has less chance of interfering with

operations, and so let's get going. We're also in a

period of low interest rates, so if there is a capital

need, this is the best time to obtain that capital.

There's a stimulus potential here from the

construction associated with the infrastructure, which we

badly need as part of an economic recovery.

Many other nations and states are watching what

we do here. California's action on shore power will be an

important step toward even deeper emission reductions in

the shipping sector. My sense is that the arguments that

this will hurt competitiveness of California ports are

wrong, that, in fact, I believe that competitive advantage

will quickly shift to the cleanest ports in the Pacific

Rim, and this rule will help us do that.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

344

Our next speaker is Regina Hsu. Regina, I have


begin.

MS. HSU: Thank you for the opportunity to

testify. My name is Regina Hsu and I'm attorney with

Earthjustice. Earthjustice supports the Air Resources

Board adopting a strong At-Berth Rule as quickly as

possible. The existing At-Berth Rule has been successful

in reducing emissions from ocean-going vessels, which are

some of the dirtiest sources of air pollution, but our

communities continue to breathe unhealthy air, and it's

clear that we'll need greater emissions reductions and a

rule that can be more easily enforced by the public.

We are grateful to staff for the work in

expanding the scope of this rule to cover even more

vessels and facilities, and we remain supportive of much

of the staff's proposal in March, which would require

earlier compliance for rol-on/roll-off and tanker vessles

after compliance.

The updated health analysis shows that the

current proposed rule would prevent hundreds of premature

deaths and bring other much needed health benefits to port

communities, but have maintained price for polluting

industries for far too long.

We were disappointed to learn that the rule is


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

345

being delayed yet again. The Board directed staff in

December to strengthen the rule and we applaud staff for

doing so. We don't support any changes that will either

delay implementation for container vessels, cruise ship

vessels, or auto carriers.

The pandemic has only highlighted the urgency of

this rule. Recent studies have made clear that

communities most impacted by poor air quality, like those

living near ports, are more vulnerable to COVID-19. CARB

must prioritize public health over industry, especially

the health of those who must breathe dirty air every

single day. We oppose any further delay of this important

rule and we urge the Board to stand with our communities

and move forward with the rule as soon as possible.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is Janet Rogers. Janet, I have


begin.

MS. ROGERS: I am Janet Rogers. I live about 800

feet from the cruise ship terminal in San Diego. I'm a

member of the North Embarcadero Coalition. Please read

our earlier public comments. We've asked to speed up the

100 percent compliance for cruise ships to connect to

shore power, instead of a long phase-in period.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

346

Our concern is timing. We need this sooner

rather than later. Please don't cave into the big

corporations and lengthen compliance dates. This will

also allow cruise ships that dock five times or less to

continue polluting until 2023. Please don't give them a

waiver, but make them comply the same as the other cruise

lines.

San Diego was recently identified with the sixth

worst pollution in the nation. We appreciate the work to

improve the situation, but we believe more can be done

faster. We are concerned about the timing to connect and

disconnect cruise ships. Please don't extend the time to

connect to shore power to two hours, as the 15-day rule

changes proposes.

We ask the cruise ships connect within one hour

of docking. Clean fuel is a relative term. The fuel that

the cruise ships use at berth is still dirtier than diesel

fuel, and we should not have to breathe the emissions.

This pollution lodges in our lungs and the damage is

cumulative.

Importantly, help the Port of San Diego find the

$6 million to install a second shore-power connection.

The numbers of days with two cruise ships in San Diego has

increased dramatically. We welcome tourists, but they

don't have the right to risk our lives in order to


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

347

vacation.

Please consider our request. Thank you.


CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you, Ryan.

Are we still getting more people signing up?

can't see at this point, if we're adding new folks to the

list at this stage.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: The list has been pretty

stable, but we can announce a cut-off, if you -- if you

want to.

CHAIR NICHOLS: I think it's a good idea, yeah.

Maybe in ten minutes or something. I mean give people a

chance, but let's not keep adding. Okay.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Sounds good. So if anyone

in the audience does not have their hand raised, please

raise your hand or dial star nine now. And I will ask

people who currently have their hand raised to not unraise

your hand.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Pat Pressel. After Pat, we

have Art Mead, Tommy Faavae, and Douglas Schneider.

So, Pat, I will activate your microphone, and you


MS. PRESSEL: Hi. My name is Pat Pressel. I

live about 800 feet from the cruise ship terminal in San


I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

348

Diego, and I'm a member of the North Embarcadero

Collation.

I want the rules for cruise ships to reduce

pollution levels to go more quickly. There are 40,000

people living downtown San Diego. Most of them live in a

ribbon of residents within three to four blocks of the

Embarcadero where the cruise ships dock. We don't believe

the high density downtown neighborhood was considered when

the rules were conceived. My husband is 83 years old and

has a kidney transplant. He's immunosuppressed by his

medication. Significant pollution from the cruise ship

negatively impacts his quality of life and the pollution

increases his risk of catching COVID-19.

Many of the residents in the downtown are

immunosuppressed, from transplants or cancer treatment,

people have asthma, and COPD, and a large number of

residents are over 65. We don't have years to wait for

improvement to the pollution levels downtown. We need

these changes now.

The pollution increases our risk for serious

illness. We were excited when we heard the new CARB rule

that would require a hundred percent of the cruise ships

to comply with the new rules by January 1st, 2021.

Instead, we find out that the rule includes a two-year

phase-in period.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

349

Since most of the big cruise ships have converted

their ships to connect to ground power, please don't delay

the compliance date. If you must phase in, then please

make the extension six months to a year, instead of two

years. January 2023 is too slow for our residents.



Our next speaker is Art Mead. Art, I have


begin.

MR. MEAD: Good afternoon, Chair Nichols and

Board members. I'm Art Mead, Vice President and Chief

Counsel of Crowley Maritime Corporation. I'm grateful for

the opportunity to restate Crowley's strong opposition to

the exclusion of articulated tug barges, or ATBs, from the

proposed At-Berth Rule.

Crowley operates the newest and most

sophisticated U.S. flag ATBs of more than 120,000 barrel

capacity, including seven of the nine ATBs currently

operating in the west -- U.S. west coast. The ATB

exclusion from the proposed rule is based on a

mischaracterization and fundamental misunderstanding of

what are large ocean-going vessel that is over 120,000

barrel capacity ATBs are and what they do.

As such, the basis for the exclusion may be


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

350

challenged as arbitrary and capricious. An articulated

tug and barge is so named because it is propelled by and

maneuvered by a tug that is physically part of the whole

vessel.

While underway in California, Crowley ATBs do not

detach the tug from the barge. While operating in

California, Crowley ATBs fully comply with all federal and

California requirements, applicable to ocean-going tank

vessels of similar capacity. In particular, while

conducting cargo operations at berth, there is no

functional difference between an ATB of at least 120,000

barrel capacity and any other ocean-going tanker.

Notably, CARB has not offered any industry study

or emissions data to suggest that ATBs at berth should not

be regulated like other ocean-going tankers. The new

At-Berth Rule provides a better alternative to the

problematic commercial harbor craft regulation of large

ocean-going ATB engines, as if they were performing the

same operations as smaller harbor tugs, and exclusively in

California waters, which they are not.

The ATB exclusion adversely impacts the

effectiveness of the rule and may have a significant

adverse impact on interstate commerce, because these ATBs

spend a majority of their out -- time outside California

waters and carry a noteworthy portion of refined product


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

351

in U.S. west coast trade.

For all these reasons as set forth in our written

comments, Crowley submits that the Board should now take

the opportunity to delete the ATB exclusion from the

at-berth rule --

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Your time is.

MR. MEAD: -- and exclude them in the rule.

Thank you.


So our next speaker is Tommy. I have activated

your microphone. If you'd like to unmute yourself and

begin.

MR. FAAVAE: Okay. Thank you, Chair and fellow

Board members. My name is Tommy Faavae. I represent IBEW

Local 11. And we know this industry really well. We've

worked in this industry when it comes to ship-to-shore

power or AMP power, you know, whichever port you're

talking about, whether it's Port of L.A. or Port of Long

Beach.

We have partnered with both San Pedro Bay Ports

on ensuring that we reduce greenhouse gases. And, you

know, with these at-berth regulations and the

ship-to-shore power infrastructure, we look forward to

building out this infrastructure in the near future, and

we are here to support it as well.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

352



Our next speaker is Douglas Schneider. After

Douglas, we have Roman -- I apologize -- Berenshteyn,

Carlo De La Cruz, and Heather Tomley.

So, Douglas, I have activated your microphone.


MR. SCHNEIDER: The World Shipping Council is a

non-profit trade association that represents container

ships, roll-on, roll-off vessels, and vehicle carriers.

CARB's current role imposes essentially all of

the regulatory obligations on ocean carriers. We

therefore support the proposed rule's inclusion of

appropriate infrastructure, connection, and performance

obligations on ports, marine terminal operators, and

emission control strategy operators.

While the proposed rule addresses some of WSC in

the industry coalition's concerns, issues remain. Our

written comments on the December 2019 proposed rule and on

the recent 15-day changes, flag remaining problems with

the rule, and include reasonable recommendations to

address those problems, including on issues such as

connection time, infrastructure planning, and vessel

incident exceptions, and other provisions.

An issue about which we continue to have serious


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

353

concerns is CARB's proposal to expand and even accelerate

the rule's applicability to ro-ro vessels without a

definitive cost-benefit analysis and based on the hope

that emissions capture technology, which has significant

problems today, will become a viable control option.

Ro-ro vessels make infrequent and very short port

calls in California. The problem is that ro-ro vessels

and the terminals they call have limited viable compliance

options. For example, barge-based emissions capture

systems present safety and reach issues. Shore-based

capture systems obstruct cargo operations, and exceed the

load-bearing capabilities at certain ports.

CARB's proposal fails to demonstrate that a cost

effective and practicable pathway exists for ro-ro

auxiliary emissions.

WSC would support adjustments of the

implementation dates back. This additional time must be

used to ensure adequate shoreside infrastructure plans are

implemented, address the remaining problems with the rule

as identified in our comments, and properly assess the

cost versus benefits and feasibility of regulating ro-ro

auxiliary emissions.



So it's been about ten minutes, so we will cutoff


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

354

the list of commenters there.

Our next speaker is Roman. Roman, I have


begin.

MR. BERENSHTEYN: Great. Can you hear me okay?


MR. BERENSHTEYN: Thanks. My name is Roman

Berenshteyn speaking on behalf of the Bay Planning

Coalition. We are a policy advocacy group with a mission

to advance the economic and environmental sustainability

of the San Francisco Bay Region. We very much appreciate

the tremendous amount of work that CARB has put into the

At-Berth Regulation, as well as the results that they have

yielded.

But we'd like to reiterate a point we made in a

comment letter dated December 4th, 2019, that the proposed

control measure should demonstrate technological and

financial feasibility within a realistic time frame, so as

to ensure that the regulated entities can comply in a safe

and technologically sound manner.

We also very much appreciate the intended

courtesy of the innovative concept provision, but believe

that in its current form regulated parties may opt to

comply via vessel-based technologies, which have not been

vetted to be safe.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

355

So in the spirit of due diligence, we'd like to

ask that the Board ensure that the parties impacted by

this rule would comply with it in a way that would

potentially compromise safety and effective emission

reductions.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is Carlo De La Cruz. Carlo, I


and begin.

MR. DE LA CRUZ: Hi. Can you hear me?


MR. DE LA CRUZ: Thank you. I'm speaking today

on behalf of the Sierra Club. Thank for the hearing.

It's important to have this discussion in connection to

the ACT Regulation. That was a critical and bold step

that the Board took. For many of the black and brown

working class communities that live by the port facilities

and faith facilities, they're experiencing pollution and

harm from multiple sources, not just one.

In South L.A. and Long Beach, residents and

families are dealing with trucks, trains, ports,

refineries, and the constant threat of air pollution to

their public health and wellness.

The So Cal communities live along the 710 and the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

356

ports, they breathe in the pollution from the nearly

40,000 trucks running along the freeways and the pollution

from the nearly 4,000 ships that comes to call at the San

Pedro Ports every year. By 2023, these ships and harbor

crafts are set to be the largest source of pollution for

smog in Southern California.

The At-Bert Regulation is a critical step to

bring relief and environmental justice to this community.

For these communities they've already been waiting for too

long. The Port of Los Angeles was the first to introduce

this technology back in 2004. This At-Berth Regulation is

an improvement on an existing regulation. We support the

adoption of the rule without delay, without modifications

to water down or delay compliance deadlines.

The new framework creates more accountability for

the public and enforceability. We need this rule to be

adopted ASAP and it cannot linger beyond the summer.



Our next speaker is Heather Tomley. After

Heater, we will have Steve Wallauch, David Gassman, and

Christine Austria-Lozoya.

So Heather, I have activated your microphone.


MS. TOMLEY: Great. Can you hear me?


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

357

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Yep, we can.

MS. TOMLEY: Okay. Good afternoon. I'm Heather

Tomley with the Port of Long Beach and I thank you for

this opportunity to provide comments. The Port strongly

supports additional emission reductions from vessels at

berth to address air quality and community health impacts.

We appreciate the hard work by CARB staff and we commend

the staff for adding flexibility. We also support the

inclusion of an interim evaluation, which will inform the

timeline.

We provided numerous comment letters on this

proposed regulation and I want to highlight that we

strongly believe additional time is needed to develop and

commercialize the required technologies and to deploy

infrastructure for ro-ros and tankers. While we

appreciate the recommendation staff just announced to not

accelerate the time lines, we still believe additional

time is needed. We recommend you extend the requirement

for ro-ros to 2027 and tankers to 2029.

We also request flexibility in the strategies

that are allowable for the innovative compliance pathway.

Leveraging voluntary port Clean Air Action Plan

strategies, for example, can be an important means of more

cost effectively reducing emissions near our neighboring



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

358

Lastly, the industry is facing significant

challenges. Cargo disruptions due to COVID-19 on top of

the impacts from the global trade tariffs have resulted in

a decline in cargo with volumes down 13 percent for the

port complex in the first five months of the year compared

to last year. These impacts increase the need for more

time.

In addition, the industry will also need support

in making these investments. We've previously requested

CARB to appropriate $200 million to at-berth emission

reduction technology advancement and deployment statewide.

We're operating from a common understanding. We need

emission reductions in our communities as soon as

possible, and we understand the importance of the

regulatory approach.

Where we diverge, however, is on the level of

effort it will take to implement these specific

requirements, the expected costs, and most importantly the

time needed.

Thank you again.


Our next speaker is Steve Wallauch.

Steve, I have activated your microphone, if you'd

like to unmute yourself and begin

MR. WALLAUCH: Great. Good evening. This is a


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

359

Steve Wallauch with Platinum Advisors here on behalf of

the California Association of Port Authorities. I want to

express CAPA's appreciation of the time staff has spent on

this rule and look forward to continuing to work with CARB

on expanded At-Berth Regulations.

Developing a rule that balances the current

economic conditions facing California's ports with the air

quality goals will be critical to the success of this

rule. I do want to reiterate those areas CAPA looks

forward to working with CARB on as the new At-Berth Rule

is implemented.

Given the unknown duration of the current

economic disruption, the rule should provide an

opportunity to reassess CARB's baseline and forecast

emission assumptions with updated calculations and

results. There's also a need for a reassessment of the

technology development. The development, deployment, and

commercialization of alternative technologies and capture

control measures has its challenges. And the development

of infrastructure to support that technology can take

several years. So we think we need to have some -- to

have the opportunity to reassess where we're at in terms

of the deadlines that are in place.

And installation of shore power has proven to be

very expensive. The expansion of the At-Berth Rule will


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

360

require CARB's continued support to dedicate low carbon

transportation funds for the development, demonstration,

and commercialization of this and other technologies.

On behalf of CAPA, we appreciate working with you

and the CARB staff and look forward to continuing our

partnership on reducing emissions to benefit our

communities and improving the competitiveness of

California's freight system.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is David Gassman. David, I have


yourself and begin.

David, are you there?

Okay. We'll skip David for now.

MR. GASSMAN: I'm sorry. Yes.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: No worries.

MR. GASSMAN: My name is David Gassman. I live

in Oakland. I happen to be active with No Coal in

Oakland, which is successfully so far preventing a coal

export terminal from being built at the base of the Bay

Bridge. And I was in attendance at the December Board

meeting at Defremery Park in West Oakland. And by the

way, I really appreciate you folks coming out to that. It

shows genuine consideration for the community.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

361

I heard a lot of discussion just now, or rather

during the Advanced Clean Truck discussion, about

environmental justice. And this electrification of ships

at berth gives you an opportunity to really implement

that. And I want to encourage you to do precisely that as

soon as possible. I understand that there are costs

involved to the companies. It may require them to do

business in a different manner. And I can be sympathetic

to that, but I think the most important thing is the

health of community surrounding the ports and I think that

must be the thing you keep most in mind.



Our next speaker is Christine Austria-Lozoya.

After that, we have a phone number ending in 436,

and then a phone number ending in 659, and then Lee

Kindberg.

So Christine, I will activate your microphone.


MS. AUSTRIA-LOZOYA: Okay. Good evening, Chair

and fellow Board members. My name is Christine

Austria-Lozoya. I'm an electrician with IBEW Local 11.

I'm speaking on support for item number 4.

We need to bring the At-Berth Rule back on the

calendar for a vote. This rule will help us carry-out our


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

362

clean air goals and create lot of good, green

electrification jobs in the process. Our ports no longer

need legacy loopholes that benefit businesses. We need

strong rules that will protect our air, help us achieve

our climate goals, and bring good jobs at the same time.

Please bring this matter back for a vote. The

health of communities depend on it.

Thank you.


Our next commenter is a phone number ending in

436. I have activated your speaker. Please state your

name for the record and you can begin.

MR. McDONALD: Good afternoon, Chair Nichols,

Board, CARB staff. My name is Brian McDonald. I am

representing Marathon Petroleum Corporation. I'm going to

be brief, given the two minutes, so I'll just get into my

presentation here.

So first, MPC is the operator of the only bulk

oil terminal with the ability for a vessel to connect to

shore power. Only two tanker vessels with this capability

to connect to this terminal electrically exist and

represent about four percent of the tanker visits to that

terminal. We don't own these tankers. CARB has

acknowledged the challenges the tankers moving to cold

ironing. The SRIA did not identify it as likely


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

363

compliance option for tankers. Many tankers visit

infrequently and are not likely justified for retrofit.

Without standardizations for voltage infrequency,

very few vessels would be compatible with any single

shore-side connection likely causing supply disruption.

That incompatibility is akin to traveling to Europe with a

hair drier without an adapter.

And second, MPC is concerned with the proposed

compliance dates as they are placing added safety risk to

its operations. Staff has assumed the majority of

compliance with this rule will be completed through the

use of a land-based capture system, a system that has

never been built or used on tankers before. Tankers are

unique in that they have --


MR. McDONALD: -- emissions from both auxil --

auxiliary and boiler engines. Reducing the time to comply

with the rule by two years is significant, provided the

equipment has never been demonstrated.

We strongly support a feasibility study be

completed prior to announcing or determining any sort of

compliance dates on tankers.

And with that, I thank you for your time.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

364

I have activated your speaker. Please state your name for

the record.

CAPTAIN STASHOWER: Good afternoon. I am Captain

Saul Stashower from Woodbridge Marine.

I am greatly concerned about the unintended

consequences of exhaust gas capture. I believe it's

imperative that the issues be fully addressed before

considering its implementation.

Number one, I'm most concerned about the way that

the system will affect the generation of inert gas. Large

tankers utilize boilers to power the cargo pumps, which

are driven by massive steam turbines. Exhaust gas from

the boilers is processed to have very low oxygen and

injected into the cargo tanks as the cargo is discharged.

This requires a critical balance of air and fuel in the

boiler in order to control the oxygen content while still

producing the right amount of steam and pressure.

It all changes as the pump speed is adjusted and

will be complicated by the starting and stopping of the

ship's generator engines, which -- whose gas is also being

captured. The system must be able to sink -- perfectly

synchronize with the vessel.

Secondly, I'm concerned about static electricity.

The flow of the exhaust gas through the capture hose

system along with other components within the capture


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

365

system are likely to produce a static charge, which could

in turn cause an incendiary spark. I've identified three

examples of deadly polluting tanker explosions caused by

static electricity combined with non- or poorly inerted

tanks. Sansinena in Los Angeles Harbor in '76. This

incident is important, because it was one of the actual

drivers that created the current rules for the use of

inert gas. The Chassiron in 2003 --

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: About 30 seconds.

MR. STASHOWER: -- that exploded in France due to

high O2 contact with static discharge. And lastly, the

Doola 3, which exploded in 2012 due to a static discharge.

All three incidents could have been prevented

with better control of static electricity and the proper

use of inert gas. I believe it's imperative that these

issues are addressed prior to implementation.

Explosions have become exceedingly rare because

of the use of inert gas and static precautions. I cannot

express strongly enough the importance of ensuring the

safety exhaust capture technology before it is

implemented. Thank you for your time.


Before you go, could we get your name one more

time, please, for the record.

CAPTAIN STASHOWER: The first name is Saul, like


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

366

"Better Call Saul". And the last name is Stashower, S-t-a

and then shower, like bath.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Perfect. Thank you so

much, Saul.

CAPTAIN STASHOWER: Of course.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Our next speaker is Lee

Kindberg.

After Lee, we have Diane Flowers, a phone number

ending in 383, and then Elizabeth Yura.

So, Lee, I have activated your microphone. You


MS. KINDBERG: And may I have a sound check?


MS. KINDBERG: Thank you. Madam Chair and

distinguished Board members, thank you for this

opportunity to comment. I'm Lee Kinberg with MAERSK.

MAERSK is the world's largest container shipping company.

And I've managed our clean fuels and shore power programs

for 14 years.

The current shore power rule has successfully

reduced emissions. CARB enforcement reports

overcompliance 77 percent in 2018, when 70 percent was

required. The requirement in 2020 is the first year of

the final step of implementing that rule and will require

80 percent. Now, that means targeting well above 80 to


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

367

ensure compliance, and having all regular vessels

equipped.

And I will note that the current rule also

requires that any vessel with shore-power equipment must

connect, if the berth is also equipped.

Now, the rule we currently have is complex for us

to manage and report, and for CARB to enforce. But the

proposed rule is also complex and it's different, in the

metrics, in the management -- pardon me -- and in the

reporting.

Now, speaking practically, the vessel equipment,

port infrastructure, and the IT reporting tools that we

will need just can't be put in place by the first of

January.

Now this is a time of major change in shipping.

MAERSK has a goal of net zero carbon shipping by 2050.

And today, we announced the establishment of the MAERSK

McKinney Moller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping. The

vessel of the future may not need shore power. It may use

batteries, fuel cells, or entirely new fuels and

technologies.

Getting the details right on the at-berth

innovative concepts provision and alternative approaches

is essential to dealing with that future and enabling that

future.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

368

So in conclusion, we believe that the practical

solution for the currently regulated fleets is to stay on

this regulated pathway, while all of the implementation

details are fully worked out, so that we can future proof

this regulation and ensure its success.

The staff recommendation is for these fleets to

continue under the current rule until at least 2023 makes

great sense --

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Excuse me. Your time is

up.

MS. KINDBERG: -- and will achieve the needed

plan reductions.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is Diane Flowers.

Diane, I have activated your microphone. If

you'd like to unmute and begin.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Diane, are you there?

Diane Flowers?

Okay. We'll go to the next speaker, a phone

number ending in 383. I have activated your speaker.

Please state your name for the record.

MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Ryan. Erin Rodriguez

with the Union of Concerned Scientists. We support a

strong At-Berth Rule, because we know that reducing


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

369

emissions for vessels at berth is critical for protecting

the health and well-being of communities, particularly

those located near ports, like L.A., Long Beach, and West

Oakland.

We know ocean-going vessels have a

disproportionate impact on PM, NOx, and greenhouse gas

emissions. These emission reductions should not hap --

should happen as soon as possible. And UCS supports

earlier compliance and no more delays on the rule. We

urge you to adopt the strongest possible rule and not

entertain the false choice of protecting communities from

known toxic emissions versus maintaining a robust economy.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is Elizabeth Yura. Elizabeth, I

have activated your microphone. You can begin.

MS. YURA: Thank you. This is Elizabeth Yura

with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. And I

appreciate the opportunity to comment here today.

The Air District strongly supports this rule.

And overall, the proposed 15-day changes address many of

the comments previously submitted by the Air District. So

lots of thanks to staff for that and all that hard work.

However, we do continue to urge consideration of

a couple key changes. And I'll go ahead and run through


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

370

them briefly. First, we appreciate that the CARB staff

brought forward the compliance date for tankers in the Bay

Area by two years, from 2029 to 2027. But we really still

feel that overburdened communities near the Bay Area's

refineries deserve the same relief as their fellow

communities in Southern California. So we still recommend

bringing the first compliance deadline forward to 2025 to

align with the Southern California port dates.

Second, we do appreciate the recommendation that

strategies from adopted AB 617 community emission

reduction plans cannot be used as part of the innovative

concept compliance proposals. However, we do recommend

that proposals be discussed with local 617 steering

committees and have community support, and that the local

air districts can have a role in that approval process for

those projects.

And third, we support the remediation fund as a

limited compliance option under the regulation. But where

applicable, we recommend that the revenues be used to

implement strategies included in the adopted 617 community

emission reduction plans, again so that they have the full

community support there.

And just in closing, I didn't get to say this in

December. I wasn't able to attend the first meeting. But

having been a part of CARB and worked with the at-berth


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

371

staff during the development of the beginning of these

amendments, I just wanted to say how proud I was to work

with the staff, and how exciting it is to see the

regulation in its current form.

So thank you.


We will try Diane Flowers again. Diane, I have

activated your microphone. Go ahead.

Diane, are you there?

I see you've unmuted yourself, but we can't hear

you.

Okay. So our call-in number is on screen now.

Please use this and then dial star nine and to raise hand.

And we'll get back to you once you do that.

So now we have Tom Dow, Heather Kryczka, and Joy

Williams.

Tom, I have activated your microphone. You can


MR. DOW: Thank you very much. Can you hear me?


MR. DOW: Thank you. Chair Nichols and members

of the Board, I'm Tom Dow, and I'm here speaking on behalf

of Carnival Corporation. As many of you know, Carnival

has been very active in shore-power development, including

collaboration with all the four cruise ports on the west


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

372

coast -- or the California coast, as well as three others

on the west coast, and three on the U.S. east coast. And

we've outfitted about 17 or 18 of our ships now to connect

to shore power. So we're big supporters of shore power

and we were early adapters.

I'd like to speak on behalf of, and advocate for,

adjusting the implementation date, leaving the existing

fleet regulations in place and allowing the implementation

date to move to 2023 as opposed to 2021. This will have

the most impact on the infrequent fliers. As you know, I

don't have to tell you what the impact of COVID has been

on the cruise industry, but basically we're shut down, and

we don't see any operations until September at least. And

it's uncertain beyond then when we'll have it.

So there's already been dramatic emissions

reductions, unfortunately because of the ceasing of

operations.

I thank you for this opportunity to make

comments, and thank the CARB staff and Board for its work

on this issue.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is Heather Kryczka. Heather, I

have activated your microphone. You can unmute

yourself -- unmute yourself and begin.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

373

MS. KRYCZKA: Thank you. My name is Heather

Kryczka, and I'm an attorney with the Natural Resources

Defense Council. We strongly support the Board taking

action to reduce --

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Sorry, Heather, you're a

little quiet on the mic there.

MS. KRYCZKA: Can you hear me now?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: A little bit better.

MS. KRYCZKA: How is this?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: That's better.

MR. KRYCZKA: Okay. Great. I'll start over.

My name is Heather Kryczka and I'm an attorney

with the Natural Resources Defense Council. We strongly

support the Board taking action to reduce emissions from

ships across the state, including for the first time

addressing at-berth emissions from ro-ro and tanker

vessels.

We urge the Board to adopt this rule as soon as

possible and not weaken any compliance deadlines in the

rule. This rule is critical to reducing NOx and

particulate matter pollution and would result in

significant health benefits.

By 2031, the proposed rule would cut cancer risk

by 55 percent for residents living near the ports of L.A.

and Long Beach. Avoided health costs from the rule total


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

374

over $2.4 billion, including hundreds of avoided premature

deaths. These benefits are greater than the costs of the

rule. When broken down, the rule would cost less than

$0.01 per gallon of gasoline for tanker vessels and only

about $1 per 20-foot equivalent unit, or TEU, for

container ships.

The Coronavirus pandemic has made reducing air

pollution more urgent today than ever before. New

research finds that communities exposed to higher

long-term levels of air pollution suffer from higher

COVID-19 death rates. We oppose the proposal to shift

back any compliance deadlines, because the challenges we

are facing today require us to achieve public health

benefits and emissions reductions as soon as possible.

You've heard from numerous residents and

environmental justice leaders today about the urgent need

to address diesel pollution from the freight industry,

which has long disproportionately burdened communities of

color in California. We need CARB to adopt strong

regulations addressing each sector of emissions from the

freight industry in order to address these longstanding

disparities. We urge CARB not to weaken or further delay

these life-saving regulations and to adopt a strong rule

no later than this summer.

Thank you.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

375


Our next speaker is Joy Williams.

After Joy, we have a AZ Banguis, a phone number

ending in 528, and then Thomas Jelenic -- Jelenic.

So, Joy, I will activate your microphone and you

can begin.

MS. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon. I am Joy Williams

of Environmental Health Coalition. EHC strongly supports

the At-Berth Regulation with the staff's proposed 15-day

changes. We work in freight-impacted communities

including West National City, which is home to a major car

import operation. One out of ten imported cars on the

road in the United States came in a ro-ro ship through

National City.

The neighborhood closest to those ro-ro ships is

West National City, which is an environmental justice

community that ranks near the top of CalEnviroScreen

overall and in the top 95 percent for diesel PM. It's the

poorest area of a poor city with some 41 percent of

families in poverty.

National City has the highest age-adjusted rates

of asthma ED visits of any city in the region, as well as

the highest rates for children and seniors. The most

recent Port of San Diego air emissions inventory confirms

the importance of reducing emissions from car carriers at


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

376

berth in National City. That 2016 inventory broke out

ocean-going vessel emissions by ship terminal, by ship

type, and by mode.

What it found was the car carriers or ro-ros

generate more diesel PM, PM2.5, SOx, and NOx than the

container, bulk, general cargo, and cruise ships combined,

and almost half of the greenhouse gases.

The 15-day changes proposed by the staff

strengthen the rule and EHC supports the changes. The

2024 compliance schedule for ro-ros will achieve these

emission reductions a year earlier than previously

proposed. Early indications are that car sales are

already recovering and we believe 2024 is feasible.

We also believe the new regulatory framework will

be more enforceable, and we do not support any delay in

shifting to that frame -- to that framework.

In closing, it's important to note that National

City has COVID-19 rates that are among the highest in San

Diego County. This community needs cleaner air as soon as

possible without regulatory delays. We urge support of

the proposed control measure for vessels at berth.

Thank you.


The next speaker is AZ Banguis. I have activated

your microphone. You can begin now.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

377

MS. BANGUIS: Hello. My name is AZ Banguis and

I'm a youth advocate for Little Manila Rising and advocate

for environmental justice, and a third-year college

student. I'm an individual who is completely familiar --

who isn't completely familiar with the technicalities of

ships, but I'm comfortable with just knowing that

ocean-going vessels are one of the largest sources of air

pollution at ports.

To consider each ship is releasing around two to

four tons of air pollution daily while docked at a port

terminal, it's unsettling knowing that these regulations

aren't fulfilling the expectations of what communities

have been consistently vocal about.

That being said, the At-Berth Rule should be

applicable to all categories of ships with no exemptions.

With these weak regulations, if you were to look at the

longevity of this, California will continue to struggle to

meet its air quality standards as well as struggle to

reduce our public health crises.

My community and I expect unbiased certifications

with an intention served to protect our environment and

the people from their cumulative exposure of

life-threatening emissions. Stockton already has plenty

of environmental setbacks due to our port. The Port of

Stockton already contributes high emissions leading to the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

378

already poor air quality, causing health hazard,

especially to the homeless who can't shield themselves

from being exposed.

The combination of the already big pollutants

with ozone and particle pollution is hurting the people of

our community. Stockton just cannot afford another

environmental injustice. We want to clearly define -- we

want a clearly defined and certified ship emission

technology control certification requirement and

mitigation measures.

Thank you.


Our next speaker is a call-in number with digits

ending in 528. I have activated the speaker. Please

state your name for the record.

MS. ROSENBERGER: My name is Laura Rosenberger.

Ships are the largest source of deadly emissions in

Oakland, Long Beach, and San Pedro area. People go on

cruises to improve their health and get away from

pollution in the city. And in a study I've heard

scientists quote the results from three years ago, there

was an increased rate of illness among the whites in

colored areas, as well as the colored people in colored

areas. And so requiring emissions reductions as soon as

possible and plug-ins to electrical -- to electricity at


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

379

the ports.

Thanks.


speaker is Thomas Jelenic. Thomas, I have activated your

microphone. We are putting up your presentation shortly.



BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: There you go.

MR. JELENIC: Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Nichols and Board members.

My name is Thomas Jelenic with PMSA representing marine

terminal operators and ocean carriers that serve

California.

Container and cruise vessels have been regulated

under the At-Berth Rule since 2014. Implementing that

rule has been expensive and difficult, but the maritime

industry has made the rule a success. The proposed

amendments would require the existing regulated fleet to

change from a fleet-average approach to an individual

vessel approach in only six months.

In six months, the vessels will not change, the

infrastructure will not change, the emission reductions

will not change. But how those same emission reductions

are measured will change and it will take ships that are

currently in compliance and make them noncompliant.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

380

It is also important to note that staff

overestimates the benefit of the proposed rule for the

existing regulated fleet for several reasons, including by

not estimating the benefit from Prop 1B funding and

requirements.

In the slides we have provided, you can see that

in 2018, the rule required a 70 percent reduction in

auxiliary engine use. The industry achieved at 77 percent

reduction exceeding goals.

On slide 2 --

--o0o--

MR. JELENIC: -- you will see that compliance

continues to improve and that the rule is successfully

enforced.

And on slide 3 --

--o0o--

MR. JELENIC: -- you can see that due to the

impact of the current crisis, activity at the ports will

be between 26 percent and 62 percent below levels assumed

in the initial statement of reasons, a gap that will only

grow during a long recovery.

In 2007, this Board recognized that container

ships and cruise ships were different from other vessels.


MR. JELENIC: You made a conscious decision to


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

381

regulate them differently. If the rule is revised to

include container and cruise ship in 2023, it is important

that we remain bifurcated, and that our vessel fleets

remain regulated and controlled under our current rule

until 2023.

However, we request that the Board maintain the

existing rule and the success it has had and keep the

bifurcated approach for container ships and cruise ships.

Thank you for your time this afternoon.


Our next three speakers are David Yow, Marvin

Pineda, and Glena -- Glenabel Toreno.

So David, I have activated your microphone. You

can unmute yourself and begin your comment.

MR. YOW: Thank you, Chair Nichols and Board

members. It's been a long but a good day. And I am still

David Yow with the Port of San Diego. Our port continues

to support a good regulation that works. COVID-19 hasn't

changed that, but has made the compliance pathway more

challenging.

Timing and funding for the infrastructure needed

at Port of San Diego are going to be key for successful

implementation of the new reg. Plainly, no surprise to

you, the economic impacts of the pandemic are a major

challenge for compliance. That's because here at the Port


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

382

of San Diego, we're one hundred percent self-sustaining.

We collect no taxes, but rely instead on lease revenue

from businesses operating in the tidelands, much of it

from the hospitality industry. And revenues from

diminished economic activity currently are down by 35 to

40 percent since the COVID pandemic hit.

The Port of San Diego has been an early adopter

of solutions like shore power, but -- and we're eager to

build on that progress that we've made to reduce air

emissions, but we can only work with what we have. We

have no regularly scheduled passenger cruise calls due to

industry shutdown, only one cruise line likely to return

this year, our projected ro-ro vessel visits are cut by

more than half.

Since the pandemic slowed everything down, it's

reduced activity at all of our terminals and along the

waterfront. And we need to see some economic recovery

first, so we can gradually ramp back up and afford to

deploy new technology. And a lot of work has been put

into this regulation and we've enjoyed working with you

and your staff on this since the beginning. And we want

to keep the -- keep the momentum and recalibrate, because

it's not enough to have great goals. We need your

support. We want to do the right thing.

Thank you.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

383


Our next speaker is Marvin Pineda.

MR. PINEDA: Can you hear me?


MR. PINEDA: Okay. Thank you.

Good afternoon Chair Nichols and Board members.

Marvin Pineda on behalf of International Longshore and

Warehouse Union.

The ILWU supports improving air quality in

communities where we work and live. In the past, we've

outreached to several environmental groups to find

solutions to improve air quality. Ports, port workers are

people of color and depend on their jobs to provide for

their families. On June 19th, west coast ports, all major

ports from Vancouver to Canada -- Vancouver, Canada to San

Diego were shut down. But ILWU in support of George Floyd

and communities of color. We want to improve the air in

the area -- in those areas.

In the past, what we've seen recently is a

decrease of job opportunities. We have -- a lot of our

members are sitting at home with no jobs. We initially

sent in a request asking for the -- for the regulations to

be postponed to 2021. I want to make it clear that we

have withdrawn that. We want to work with CARB and the

environmental community to find solutions to improve air.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

384

So our request, and we respectfully request, is

that the roll-on roll-off vessels regulations pushed to

2027, so that we could work with car ports to find funding

opportunities for this equipment. We also need CARB to

invest more in those technologies. And the third request

is that there's a reassessment on the regulations. And

fourth, we ask that the concept for -- the concepts and

the cap measures are considered.

And I have eight seconds. I want to make it

clear that our -- we are not requesting any anything as of

now on oil tankers. Our request on the pushback is for

roll-on, roll-off vessels. Thank you.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. Before you leave, you

may get another minute or two, I think I saw Mr. De La

Torre's hand up. Hector, did you have a comment or

question.

BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: Thank you, Chair. I

think he addressed it with his last comment. I was going

to ask for clarification. I had read the letter from

ILWU, and there was no mention --

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay.

BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: -- of oil tankers.

And previously, in speaking with Marvin and leadership,

they made it clear that the had no issue with the oil

tanker regulation in our proposal.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

385


BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: Is that correct,

Marvin?

MR. PINEDA: Yeah, that is correct. As a -- if

I -- if I may have 30 seconds here.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Sure.

MR. PINEDA: It's that we are looking at -- we

want -- we want to clean the environment. We want to

clean the air. One thing that we want to do is figure out

solutions for -- for instance, San Diego doesn't have the

economic means to -- for the infrastructure, so we want to

have a little more time to figure out the funding. And as

mentioned in the presentation, roll-on, roll-off vessels,

they're a small percentage of the PM2[SIC] pollution, so

we -- we are in the middle of -- the workers are in the

middle of regulations and at times employers. And we

think that there's a middle ground, so that there is

infrastructure improvements and that we get to keep our

jobs, which is very important. We want to make sure that

any of those regulations do not put workers out of a job.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Understood. Thank you.


MR. PINEDA: Thank you.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Okay. So our next three

speakers is a phone number ending in 063, then Tim DeMoss,


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

386

and then Yassamin Kavezade.

So first, I will activate the phone number for

063. Please state your name for the record and you can

begin.

Hello. We can't hear you.

Hello.

MS. FLOWERS: Can you hear me?


MR. FLOWERS: Oh, hi. Okay. My name is Diane

Flowers. And I -- I'm a lifetime port resident. And I

live a short walk from the channel in San Pedro. And

everybody in my family has worked in the port, my

grandfather, my dad, my brother, anyway, my husband,

everybody.

And, you know, I love the port, but I feel

responsible for it to not kill people, you know, and not

kill the port workers, not kill people in the community.

My granddad died when he was 59, after 30 years working in

the port. That -- that was then. They didn't have

technology, but now we do, so I'm very concerned about

seeing delays. I want to see the best technology applied

to the strongest rules for At-Berth Regulations.

I -- I'm on the third floor. I can look down and

see this smoke spewing every time. I'm concerned like

somebody else said about two to four tons a day. I'm


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

387

concerned about people asking to wait, because health

can't wait. Life can't wait. We've got to figure out how

to move quickly on this. We just have to. Oh, my

goodness. It's -- it's just upsetting. It's the people

that work in the ports like all my family has.


MS. FLOWERS: And the community and it's the

planet, you know. And on your 15-day thing, I'm very

concerned about this innovative concepts option. I feel

that that is going to be a maze of things that will make

it hard to look at a regulation and see if it's being

carried out for a layperson or for the community. I want

a simple regulation that's clear what it is and that it is

being carried out and implemented. I want to be able to

look at it myself without having to go through getting a

Master's degree to find out about a bunch of other things.


MS. FLOWERS: Thank you.


So our next speaker is Tim -- Tim DeMoss. Tim,

I've activated your microphone. You can unmute yourself

and begin your testimony.

MS. DeMOSS: Thank you, Ryan.

Good afternoon, California Air Resources Board

members and staff. My name is Tim DeMoss. I'm the Air


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

388

Quality Environmental Affairs Officer at the Port of Los

Angeles. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the

proposed control measure of port ocean-going vessels at

berth.

We support shore power. In fact, it was

pioneered at the Port of Los Angeles. We want to see it

continue to succeed. However, I would like to use this

opportunity to reiterate the following items that were

offered in our comment letter submitted to you back in

April of this year.

First, in light of the current pandemic, we

recommend a mechanism that allows for a timely

reassessment of the regulation and a greater flexibility

in the event that economic conditions warrant it.

Second, shore-power technology is more compatible

with some ship categories than others. We hope your

rulemaking process will allow for assessment of the

feasibility of use of shore power and any alternatives for

the tanker and ro-ro ship categories before actual

requirements going into effect.

Third, there are two issues we would like to work

with you on regarding enforcement. First, as you

contemplate a hundred percent compliance requirements, we

would like to work with you on determining a level of

compliance that accommodates unanticipated circumstances


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

389

without triggering non-compliance. Second, once

regulatory requirements go into effect, we would like to

work with you to ensure accountability is appropriately

allocated, whether this be facilitating installation of

infrastructure or actual emissions reductions.

Fourth, we hope your regulatory process will

include check-ins or other types of assessment steps that

can allow the various stakeholders to be part of the

implementation process and assure that the steps

envisioned can be implemented.

And finally, with respect to funding,

installation of shore-power infrastructure is very

expensive and we hope the State can help support this

program with appropriations for the development, purchase,

and deployment of this technology as they did in the past.

We hope that you will consider the items just mentioned,

and we look forward to continuing to work with you through

your regulatory process.



speaker is Yassamin Kavezade. After Yassamin, we have

Theral Golden, a phone number ending in 182, and then

William Koons.

So Yassamin, I've activated your microphone. You



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

390

MS. KAVEZADE: -- for coordinating all of our

comments today. Again, my name is Yassamin Kavezade or

Yassi with the Sierra Club national My Generation

Campaign. Although, I'm not a resident of a port

community, in the Inland Empire I feel the impacts of

diesel death zones and goods movement. And the same

impacts from at-berth ships influence my friends and

colleagues who live near the Ports of L.A. and Long Beach.

....Activities have had a strong hold on over our

communities for centuries. And your job at CARB is to

move away from what's easy to what is necessary. The

supply chain is connected and any delay on the

implementation of this rule will continue crises we've

been living with before COVID-19 -- to allow ro-ro -- we

believe that there are no proposals to allow ro-ro vessels

to delay compliance until 2025 instead of 2027 --

weakening of this proposal.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Sorry, for interrupting.

You're cutting out -- in and out a little bit.

Are you there?

Yassamin?

Okay. So we'll very quickly move on to our next

commenter. Yassamin, if you're there, you have a minute

left. I suppose I'll try unmuting you after -- after our

next commenter.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

391

So our next commenter is Theral. I have


begin you testimony.

MR. GOLDEN: Good afternoon. My name is Theral

Golden. I'm a resident of West Long Beach and a member at

the West Long Beach Association.

I was present and spoke at the December 4th

meeting. And I would like to reiterate that we here in

West Long Beach need relief immediately, not later. The

industries call for a delay. I think in my mind it is

repulsive, because a delay means more children will suffer

from the effects of asthma, more older and seniors will

suffer from other diseases that are directly related to

goods movement, and the cruise industry, the environmental

impacts, although are somewhat lower because of the

current pandemic, but they will pick up. And they never

make allowance in their presentations.

I heard today that all the damage they have done.

They are only looking at economic gain today. We have

been suffering. I've been living in this community for

over 45 years. And until the last 15, where there has

been any movement toward relieving the negative

environmental impacts. Not to move forward would mean

more pain with the cruise ship industry, and in particular

the Port of Long Beach who is city department to take a


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

392

position of extending it, to continue putting pain and

suffering on its residents I think that to be repulsive at

this time.

And I want to thank you for the opportunity of

speaking. Thank you.


We'll very quickly go back to Yassamin. I'd ask

you to unmute your microphone.

MS. KAVEZADE: Hi. Can you hear me now?


MR. KAZEVADE: I'm so sorry about that. I think

my Internet was bugging out.

So, yeah, I just want to echo quickly the

comments from my previous colleague as well from the

Sierra Club, Carlo De La Cruz. We don't want to delay the

compliance. And there are proposals to delay the shift to

the new regulatory framework from 2021 to 2023, I believe,

and we don't support that proposal. The new framework

creates more accountability for the pubic enforceability.

We need this rule to be adopted ASAP and we can no longer

be waiting beyond the summer. And thank you so much for

your time. Have a great afternoon, everybody.


speaker is a phone number ending in 182. I have activated

your speaker. If you could please state your name for the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

393

record.

MR. SINKOFF: Yes. Hi. Can you hear me. Hold

on one moment. Sorry about that.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: We can hear you.

MR. SINKOFF: Can you hear me?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Yep.

MR. SINKOFF: Oh, very good. Good afternoon,

Chair Nichols and members of CARB and members of the

public. This is -- my name is Richard Sinkoff. I'm the

Director of the Division of Environmental Programs and

Planning at the Port of Oakland. First, I want to say

we've really enjoyed working closely with CARB staff over

many years on this rule and other regulatory processes.

So I feel like we've -- we really have a good working

partnership with CARB staff. And as those -- everyone has

been following the Port of Oakland we've -- we've made

great strides in reducing emissions from port sources.

We submitted a letter today to CARB on the

proposed control measure. And I just want to highlight

that we -- we're achieving plug-in rates at the port that

are above the regulatory levels set by the current rule.

April was a bit of an anomaly, not surprisingly

because of the COVID crisis, and the inability to do

commissionings. But overall, the trend under the existing

rule is -- is above the regulatory standard. So our


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

394

perspective at the Port is that the current at-berth

regulation is very successful. We have good partners with

our terminal operators and the vessels.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: About thirty seconds, sir.

MR. SINKOFF: And we believe that the rules

should be maintained for container ships. We have

concerns because the port does not have a feasible

alternative compliance method. This has been recognized

by CARB staff. Also, the analytics for the proposed

control measure continue to show a growth rate that is

well above the documentation that we provided to CARB. So

we believe that the emissions are overstated.

And finally, we're concerned again that the TIEs

and VIEs concept, which has been introduced could create

actually --


MR. SINKOFF: -- conflict and reduce

collaboration among our vessel owners and terminal

operators of the port

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Your time up.

MR. SINKOFF: So thank you. So thanK you for the

opportunity. We look forward to continuing to work with

staff on this regulatory process.

Thank you.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

395

Our last -- our last speaker for this Board item

is William Koons. William, I have activated your


MR. KOONS: Hello. Can you hear me?


MR. KOONS: Hello.


MR. KOONS: Oh, thank you.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Um-hmm.

MR. KOONS: Okay. I'm William Koons. I'm

currently a Commissioner -- Environmental Commission in

the City of Carson. I'm also on the AB 617 community

steering committee here in Carson.

So I request the following basic changes to the

At-Berth Rule. Number one, first that the regulation

include all categories of ships with no exceptions or

exemptions. And that includes ships like dry bulk and

general cargo ships.

Number two, that the regulation be adopted as

soon as possible and all ship comply as soon as possible.

Number three, that the regulation include a

CARB-approved ship emissions control technology

certification requirement. So I do not like the CARB

staff proposed approved emissions control strategy. We

also want emission control technology certification for


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

396

protocol and procedures to be adopted.

Number four, that the regulation require ship

emissions compliance at all ship locations, including at

dock, at anchor -- and anchor being port water -- port

waters outside of the breakwater and even in the coastal

waters.

Number five, that the regulation require all

ports and terminals to have compliance requirements. The

staff has created these TIEs and VIEs. And they avoid

advanced planning, because it's not necessary. So they

need to prepare emergency backup contingency plans.

And my last one, number six, that the regulation

require ports and terminals to provide more adaptive shore

power, that is the shore power needs to be at both ends of

the ship or be connected up -- be able to be connected up

at both ends of the ship and both sides. That's the port

and starboard sides and fore and aft ends, because that's

some of the problem in connecting of the port power.

Thank you and stay safe.


Madam Chair, that concludes our list of speakers

for this item.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Okay. Thank you. I think

at this point, we can close the record on this agenda

item. But if it is determined that we need additional


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

397

modifications, we will reopen and have another 15-day

notice of public availability issued. If the record is

reopened, then the public will be able to submit comments

on any proposed changes, which would be considered and

responded to in the Final Statement of Reasons for the

regulation.

However, any comments received after this hearing

but before a notice goes out will not be accepted. So

this is -- this is it for this particular version of the

proposed regulations.

So, at this point, I think it's time to hear from

any Board members about their comments or questions. And

I will see if I can get my list up and see if anybody has

their hands up at this point.

Well, again, I'm not -- I see the list of names,

but I'm not seeing hands up. I see that someone has --

no, we've got several. Okay. Well, somebody is going to

have to call those names out for me then. Sandy, do you

want to just do that?

VICE CHAIR BERG: Certainly, I'll be happy to.

So first on the list I see is Hector De La Torre.

BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: Thank you, Sandy.

Thank you, Chair. I want to make two comments. One is

about roll-on/roll-off vessels, and the other is about

containerized and cruise ships that are going to go from


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

398

80 percent to 90 percent compliance next year.

I'll start with that one, because I think that's

the easiest one. That -- and I believe in my

conversations with staff that this is happening, that they

allow -- they be allowed to continue to report similarly

to what they've been doing under the current regulation,

so that they don't have to change the reporting, just

their compliance going from 80 percent, which they're

already at, to over 90 percent next year and they don't

have to change anything in terms of how they report to us.

I believe there's a two- or three-year transition

in those -- the reporting, but as of January 1st, they

won't have to change the way they report to us, unless I

think they voluntarily want to do it, but we don't require

it under this rulemaking.

And then on roll-on/roll-offs, the commentary

that was made regarding roll-on/roll-offs it's a unique

vessel in the way it's loaded and unloaded. The ships are

different, et cetera. One of the things that really

affected my thinking on it was in my staff conversations,

that after the Great Recession, it took three or four

years for the roll-on/roll-off vessels, the auto imports

to get back to where they were pre-Great Recession.

And so if you take that into account, plus the

unique features of those ships, when they come in


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

399

at-berth, I really think that having a delay on that to

2027, which is what was just requested is a fair request,

and I would support -- be supportive of that, because of

the economic impact that we're seeing, you know, it's a

significant impact three to four years, and the changes

that will have to be made to the port complex itself to be

able to take those ships.

2027 is also the year for the Northern California

tanker regulations. So it's not outside of the scope of

what we're doing here today. It's not just, you know, way

beyond what we're doing here today. It's equivalent to

what we're doing for tankers an Northern California.

So I think that's a fair ask. There were two

other asks. One was about funding. We can't do that

here, but obviously we're well aware of how important the

emissions are from vessels in the port complex, 40 percent

by our estimation, by our analysis from a couple of years

ago is due to vessels. So it's a good chunk of what's

taking place of the emissions that are taking place in

the -- out at the port complex, and so I think we need to

see what we can do to support the conversion that takes

place.

The other request was regarding a reassessment

that is, you know, as I understand it in the regulation.

At the end of 2022, there will be a reassessment to see


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

400

where we're at and see if any adjustments are needed based

on economics, based on impacts to the communities, et

cetera. So that is baked in here and obviously I'm

supportive of that, as we've done on many other

regulations where we do a mid-term review to see where

we're at in progressing on all of these things.

Everything else with the regulation on the

tankers, which we know are 50 percent of the emissions

from the vessels coming into port I'm supportive of. I

wouldn't change a thing on any of that. But I would

request that we change the roll-on/roll-offs to 2027, if

feasible under the regulation without triggering another

15-day, which I know that the Chair referenced right now,

and I think we need to put this to bed.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. Sandy, I was actually

successful in finding the right button to get the list

back.

VICE CHAIR BERG: Great. Good. No problem.

CHAIR NICHOLS: So I'm taking my gavel back.

VICE CHAIR BERG: Good, it's yours.

(Laughter.)

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. I'd like to call on

Barbara Riordan next then.

BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Let me ask about one thing there was a request from


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

401

Crowley Marine that talked about the articulated tug

barges being included in this rule. They wanted to be

included. I am not familiar enough, and I apologize to

staff. I didn't have time to contact you and have you

explain it all to me. But maybe in the process of what --

from now until we hear this again. You might look at

that, because that was a request. And it would give me an

opportunity to understand the intricacies of that request

on their part.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you.

Alex Sheriffs. Oh, no, sorry. Judy Mitchell

next.

BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL: Hi. Thank you. My

comments kind of follow along the same lines as Hector's.

This is a pretty significant rule change, because the

current rule relies on a fleet average of tying up to

shore power. And now what we're going to look at is ship

by ship that we get the correct emission reductions.

So it's significantly different. And I think

that it's -- more time is warranted in certain cases. For

the containers, reefers, and cruise ships, I would agree

with the staff recommendation on that to leave them when

the current rule for 2021 and 2022 and have the turnover

in 2023.

Right now, they are in compliance. They're in


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

402

complete compliance with the existing rules, so we're

getting the emission reductions that we expect to get.

And I don't think there will be any impact on our impacted

communities.

For ro-ros, again, this is a very unique vessel.

And it's a vessel that for loading -- for load and

unloading it's very labor intensive. And I have been

approached by the longshoreman's union to talk about this,

and their concern about it. And it is also a vessel that

doesn't call at our ports that often and it isn't the same

vessel. It can be any vessel that's out there on the high

seas, and so it does create a problem to how we actually

outfit those with the control technologies that will meet

the rule.

So we had advanced the rule on that for them to

2024. And my thought is that I don't want to push them

back too far, but I am willing to restore the original

date we had, which was 2025. So I think Hector was

talking about going to 2027. I kind of think that's too

far out. I'd like to bring it back in to 2025. That's

still five years out. I think that could be enough time

to take a look at it. We will do an interim evaluation

and we can consider a change on that if needed somewhere

half way between now and 2025. So that's kind of where

I'm thinking on that.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

403

The tankers, 50 percent of the emissions come

from our tankers. And we did give them the concept of an

innovative technology that they might think of to meet the

rule, and that provided the flexibility. It's isn't quite

what they asked for, but we did -- our staff did work on

it, provide that to them, and I think it's a good concept,

so they have another pathway to meet the reductions. And

so I would leave them at the existing timelines of 2025

and 2027.

And I think there are some possible retrofits of

tankers where they could plug in. I know that we do have

tan -- Marathon has a port here in our twin ports that has

vessels that plug in. We know it can be done. It's just

a matter of willpower and getting there. So I would leave

them where they are for now.

Thank you.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you. Now, it's Alex

Sheriffs turn.

BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: Thank you. Can you hear

me all right at this point -- at this hour?

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes. Yes. Are you still able to

speak?

(Laughter.)

BOARD MEMBER SHERRIFFS: Yeah. You know, I'm

going to put on my doctor, my public health hat. And I'm


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

404

just -- I'm very sensitive to the pleas of the residents,

the environmental justice concerns as we think about

moving any of the -- delaying any of this. So I really

need assurance from staff that they've looked carefully at

the numbers. And if -- if we're moving the needle, it is

actually not delaying the benefits that we're trying to

achieve.

You know, it's very reassuring that the cruise

industry, they're doing this. You know, I do wonder

delaying it. Well, what is the cost per passenger of

going from that 80 percent to 90 percent and thinking

about, you know, if I was on a cruise ship, wait, if I'm

creating pollution in a community, a hazard for a place

I'm visiting, wouldn't -- wouldn't I want to rectify that,

so, that's a question of how significant this -- this is.

You know, the ro-ros, you know, it's very

unpredictable for us. You know, this is -- this is not

the Great Recession. This is something very different.

So if we're going to delay at all, I don't think we should

delay very much, simply because it's very hard to predict

what -- when the industry is going to bounce back, how

quickly they're going to bounce back. And clearly, this

is not the last time we're going to look at any of this.

You know, the innovative technology I wanted to

touch on, that was the last thing I wanted to touch on


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

405

here. It seems great, gives flexibility, I did not hear

enthusiasm from the industry, so maybe a question to staff

about why the lack of enthusiasm about having an

alternative approach.

But I would also observe -- you know, it's very

hard for us sometimes to wrap our heads around the meaning

of emissions, but I think we all have a very good sense of

what it means to be a tier one locomotive. And if 70

tanker visits are the equivalent of replacing four tier

one locomotives with four tier four locomotives, boy, that

is a very significant step. I mean, 70 tanker visits.

That's a very important pollution source for a community.

So again, reflecting back on the pleas of the

residents, the environmental justice concerns. And again,

the point was made about that process really needs to be

strong on transparency, be strong on the community being

able to understand what the trade-offs have been here,

when -- if they see smoke coming from a ship, they need to

be really very easy for them to see where -- where this is

being made up and how that's impacting their health in a

positive kind of way.

Thank you.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Phil Serna.

BOARD MEMBER SERNA: Thanks, Chair.

I guess since this is an informational item, we


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

406

have the capacity, and it's probably by design today, to

give just refined feedback to staff about our individual

perspectives on an important matter obviously. I guess

the perspective I come from, given that is the intent for

today's item, and certainly with the benefit of the public

testimony that we heard, I want to know how slippery a

slope this is. This is -- this is an issue that is

grounded in identifying kind of the special circumstance

of a pandemic that hasn't plagued the earth in 103 years.

So it's obviously very unique.

And so I'm really very interested in the concept

of delay that is founded on the unique economic social

circumstances that come with -- with the economic retreat

or shutdown, however you want to characterize it, and what

else do we have on the horizon for the next several

months, because obviously this is the pandemic, and its

response is not going to end in the foreseeable future.

We're going to be at this for several months until we have

widespread protection in the form of a vaccine, which

isn't expected until next year.

So if we were to, for instance, consider delays,

almost regardless of where and what segments of shipping,

and to what extent, and what dates, what years, what else

can staff enlighten us about that may come our way in the

next few months in terms of other regulations, given our


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

407

charge -- our pub -- our very important public health

charge where others might look back and say, well, you

know, the ARB they chose to delay implementation of this

rule, this effort to reduce emissions for public health

sake. They did it back in, you know, the summer of 2020.

Here, we are at the beginning of 2021 and we want to talk

about delays, because we're not out of this -- out of the

woods yet. That's my concern here.

And so I think that is -- since this is intended

again to be kind of a back-and-forth sharing of ideas and

perspectives between staff and Board members, that's what

I have to share, that's my concern.

I will tell you that I am very much leaning

towards the fact that I think it's a very slippery slope.

And I appreciate the fact that there's been a great deal

of testimony today that communicates that in the form of

genuine concern about public health.

And, you know, I can't -- I can't avoid the irony

here. Here, we are being asked to look at the prospect of

delays. The reason being, a distressing respiratory

ailment. So that's my -- that's my perspective. I don't

know if staff cares to respond to just the overall general

concern I have about other regulations that might be

challenged in light of a perspective delay here.

CHAIR NICHOLS: You know, Phil, I could ask them


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

408

to just respond in terms of other regulations that are in

the works that could be impacted by this or we could hear

just from the other two or three people who want to

comment and then ask Richard to give kind of a

comprehensive explanation of how they arrived at the

recommendation that we're seeing today, because I'm sure

it was not done lightly, let's put it that way, you know.

The idea of giving any delays was not something that they

were, I'm sure, eager to do. So how they arrived at those

kind of trade-offs maybe would be a good thing to have

them explain --

BOARD MEMBER SERNA: Sure.

CHAIR NICHOLS: -- kind of comprehensively. So

why don't we just wrap-up the other Board members comments

and then see -- see where we are.

John Balmes was next.

No?

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: I actually --

CHAIR NICHOLS: You put your hand down.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: No I -- I want to speak,

but I'm not next. I think Diane was --

CHAIR NICHOLS: Who I see next is Diane, and then

John, and then Sandra, and then Nathan.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: And then the other John.

CHAIR NICHOLS: And then the other John.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

409

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: You, the other John, yes.


BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: Is it this Diane?

CHAIR NICHOLS: This is -- only one Diane, yes.

(Laughter.)

BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: My dad was John, so I'm

used to that, but -- so thank you. And I appreciate the

report and the hard work that the staff is doing. I also

appreciate the, I think, difficult consideration that's

obviously evident from Board comments. I'm going to just

talk about the ro-ros for a minute and say while they may

not be significant across the state or in your port in

L.A. or in Oakland, they are very significant in San Diego

and National City.

As you heard, they generate more diesel PM, NOx,

SOx, than all of the other ships combined. More of those

pollutants than all of the other ships combined that come

to San Diego. So I can't support an action that continues

to condemn one of the most impacted communities of

National City to more pollution for a longer period of

time.

I mean again, as you heard, this is one of the

poorest cities -- the poorest city actually in San Diego,

and the poorest area in that city. They have high, high

asthma rates among children. We need to figure out a way


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

410

to make this work. So I had a good conversation I think

with staff and I appreciate their willingness and their

interest in being flexible.

We heard that car imports were down by about 12

percent a month or two ago. Port staff has come forward

with a 50 percent reduction, so, you know, what is it.

We're also hearing that car sales are on the increase and

that they recovered well in April. So what impact does

that have on the car imports. So overall, I don't think

we have the data, certainly not for a 2027 push. And I

think that's inappropriate and really we shouldn't do it.

On the other hand, I really appreciate ILWU's

testimony. I would like us to be more collaborative. I'd

like us to figure out how we get bonnets on these ro-ro

ships, which according to the conversations I've had with

staff, we've got a couple that are already certified by

CARB, that would be very adaptable to the ro-ro ships.

And I think CARB has the VW mitigation fund coming

forward, which could provide some support for that, as

well as probably other resources. And perhaps staff can

talk more about that.

I really think there's a way that we can make

this work, so that we can get this going for that

industry. I also appreciated, I don't know who it was.

Actually, that said that the 617 communities should be


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

411

included and consulted with when we think about these

innovative concepts, which again are good options for --

for these ships, and that could come forward, but it

really should go through the 617 community which National

City is one.

So I'm going to leave it at that, because I think

there's been a lot of comments about the other aspects,

and ask staff to perhaps give us more data. You know, I

haven't seen specific data at all. And I think as Phil

said, this is really a moving target. We don't know what

this is going to look like. It doesn't necessarily look

like the Great Recession and we should give ourselves the

ability to move forward, support the port in getting that

done, so that we can reduce pollution in a very impacted

community.

Thanks.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you.

John Gioia.

Supervisor Gioia.

BOARD MEMBER GIOIA: Yep. I unmuted myself.

Okay. I thought I was after some others, but -- so let me

start by saying I know this rule has been a long time in

coming, and it's a complicated and complex rule. So I

appreciate all the hard work of staff and all the work of

the advocates and just hearing from so many people on


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

412

this.

And I think -- and like the last rule, the Truck

Rule, this agency has been working to set ambitious goals.

And I do think that the compliance dates are ambitious.

And on the last rule, we -- we lauded that and said that's

a great thing. Here I think we're recognizing the

ambitious timeline. And we've heard from various

industries about, you know, can we -- can we meet those

deadlines, can they meet those deadlines?

And my understanding is that the -- there are

points along the way, and so before -- I'm going to ask

the staff to sort of go into this a little bit, before I

get to my next point, that there are opportunities through

feasibility studies to ensure that if we set these

ambitious dates, which are -- is always a good thing to

do, that -- that there is opportunity to look at

feasibility issues along the way.

And I think this Board has always been open and

understands that when it sets these ambitious dates, if --

there's a certain amount of trust. If down the road it

determines that compliance dates are not feasible for

whatever reason, it always has the opportunity to

reconsider that.

So let me just ask the staff to go through

briefly the feasibility check-ins here and then I'll get


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

413

to my second and last point.

EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: Heather, you want to

cover that.

TRANSPORTATION AND TOXICS DIVISION CHIEF ARIAS:

Sure, I'll start, and then if Bonnie wants to add

on, but, yes. So, of course, we are always interested in

any data that comes our way. Certainly have called out

specifically in the latest change of the regulation that

any of the reports that industry does as far as their

assessments of safety associated with utilizing the

technology, we definitely want to get that information

from them. We will continue to work with them and all the

agencies that are doing permitting and other issues

associated with all the technologies.

And our goal, of course, is to report back to you

in 2022 with the interim report. And as you've said, if,

at that time, the data warrants changes in the Board

direction at that time is for us to go back and revisit

it, of course we will.

Bonnie, is there anything you want to add as far

as the additional technology reports?

TTD FREIGHT ACTIVITY BRANCH CHIEF SORIANO: No,

not in terms of the technology reports, but just a

reminder that the -- along with the interim evaluation, we

did add the innovative concepts provision, which provides


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

414

some flexibility in terms of compliance options.

BOARD MEMBER GIOIA: So --

CHAIR NICHOLS: So, John, excuse me for just a

second here, but I'm just going to warn the staff, that

since -- you know, I was trying to get this all to be

dealt with at the end of the Board member comments, but

immediately after you finish with answering John's points,

you're going to have to then address the question that was

raised by Phil, because it's not fair that I put him off.

Okay. Sorry. Go ahead, John.

BOARD MEMBER GIOIA: I'm sorry. Sorry, Phil, I

didn't mean to.

(Laughter.)

CHAIR NICHOLS: It's okay.

BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: And the questions -- and

the questions I raised, so we're -- it's a slippery slope.

BOARD MEMBER GIOIA: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry.

So bottom line is I'm fine with the dates and I wanted to

have that feasibility issue just get addressed, because I

think there has been a certain amount of trust that I

think the broader community has had with Air Board

hopefully that issues always get reevaluated if they're

not workable and -- and so I'm fine with the dates that

have been set.

On the second point, so without proposing any


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

415

change of dates, more of a process, on the issue of the

innovative compliance path with tankers, which -- which to

me, the important part of that is that it ensures that --

that you get equal or greater reductions out of that, so

that you achieve then the same benefit to the community by

getting equal or same.

And, Richard, you laid out an issue about

whether -- whether that -- whether these concepts get

reapproved over a three-year term or a five-year term.

And I understand that that term is relevant in deciding

where to make an investment, right? Is the -- is the

investment made on the shore-side, is it made on the shore

power, all of that? So that seems to be at least

irrelevant. It doesn't change the timeline for compliance

at all. Compliance dates are still the same. It's just

which path is chosen. So talk a little more about the

three- versus five-year issue.

EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: All right. What you're

referring to is the effective timeframe for an innovative

concept, which in the current language refers to three

years. In the conversations that have continued to play

out, including comments, there was a suggestion that the

innovative concept as structured could be renewed every

three years, assuming all the criteria continue to be

applicable, above and beyond reductions, same location,


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

416

same pollutants --

BOARD MEMBER GIOIA: Right.

EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: -- same benefits from a

public health and community standpoint.

And the point was made that there are certain

investments that are being considered that if there was a

longer applicable time frame, a five-year for instance,

those investments would more -- much more likely to be

made, return on investment for instance, time horizon for

regulations on the future horizon for instance.

And the point was that the thinking was as part

of following this Board hearing, there could be some

adjustments to 15-day language that include additional

criteria where there could be innovative concepts where

five years creates additional opportunities to actually

deliver benefits to the community, to deliver reductions

sooner and meet all these criteria. That's -- that was

the theme that we were trying to tee up in that slide.

BOARD MEMBER GIOIA: Yea, I mean, it seems to me

I'd rather -- I mean, if having a five-year period and you

get the same reductions and get the benefits, to me, is a

better approach than to come back with the feasibility

analysis that shows that the capture or shore-side

isn't -- technology isn't working, so -- because, you

know, that that's where the -- that's where the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

417

feasibility and technology issue has been raised.

So it's an alternative path and it makes sense to

invest in it for five years. And then it's renewed or not

after that period of time. That's -- so I'm -- I'm open

and supportive to looking at that, at the five-year

period, if it obviously achieves the same or greater

benefits without changing the compliance, so you still get

the emission reductions based on the time frames you have

and the ordinance in the regulation, and not risk having a

feasibility analysis come back and say, hey, this --

the waterside improvements aren't feasible and it delays

it, whereas you do this alternative path and you get the

reductions in the time frame you want. So I'm open and

supportive of that.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Well, I think the point is that

the people who are subject to this rule get to make the

choice, and I think --

BOARD MEMBER GIOIA: Right.

CHAIR NICHOLS: -- and I think they will. I

mean, I think they'll make the choice that makes sense for

them.

BOARD MEMBER GIOIA: Right. The choices may be

different if it's a three- or five-year term. That's --

that's the issue, right, is that --

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yeah.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

418

BOARD MEMBER GIOIA: So that's why the five-year

period -- so I'm open to that five year.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Hear you. I hear you.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Mary.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Sandra Berg.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Mary?

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Could I -- because I think

I was supposed to be the John instead.

BOARD MEMBER GIOIA: Oh, sorry.

CHAIR NICHOLS: No -- well, I don't -- not on my

list, John Balmes.

BOARD MEMBER GIOIA: Sorry.

CHAIR NICHOLS: If you're desperate to speak --

BOARD MEMBER GIOIA: I defer to John Balmes.

CHAIR NICHOLS: -- I will call -- I will call on

you, but it was Sandy, Nathan, and then you.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: No, but I just want to --

I'll make my comment very short and then you won't have to

worry about me any more.


BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Because mine is related to

the innovative concept --

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yeah.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: -- that -- and I just


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

419

wanted to say that I support what Diane said about

involving the AB 617 communities and the discussions about

that, especially if they're going to be five-year --

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: And so that's my main

comment. I'm very supportive of what Diane said about

that.

CHAIR NICHOLS: I hear you. Okay. That's a --

appreciate that. That was directly relevant. I'm just

trying to read down the list of hands here, so apologies.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: And now I'll shut up.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Well, you don't have to,

but your -- if you're finished, you're finished. Okay.

Sandra Berg.

VICE CHAIR BERG: Thank you. I'll be quick.

Thank you, everybody, for some great comments. So I do

remember the December Board meeting very clearly. And I

don't think that I've really changed my feeling about what

needed to be done. At the Board meeting, I was concerned

and asked staff to take a look at the container reefer and

cruise vessel. And I do want to make sure that I'm

correct, we are not postponing going from 80 percent to 90

percent. What we're doing is giving them the additional

two years to stay in their current compliance option, and

so I am -- and if I'm correct on that, that we're not


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

420

postponing, and they get to continue to average, they're

ahead of schedule. And so I do agree with other comments

that that is not a step backwards, and I would confirm

that. I would agree with staff to stay in the fleet

averaging and move then to the new process in 2023.

You know, I'm really compelled by the ro-ros and

National City. And so I -- I do agree that we need to

figure out how to take care of a highly impacted community

that gets 40 percent. So I agree with Diane we need more

data. We really need to understand what is the impact

there. If there is emission savings because business is

suffering, that's one thing, but 40 percent is a lot of

impact to a community. And so I would like more

information on that.

I agree with staff to maintain the tanker vessel.

As I said at the meeting, these communities have waited a

long time. It's hard always before. It's hard now. We

really do need to figure out. I am supportive of the

innovative concept. I would be supportive for the

additional years, and I also would be supportive of the

617 communities participation, so that we all understand

the transparency.


CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Nathan Fletcher you are

the last hand up.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

421

BOARD MEMBER FLETCHER: Thank you. Thank you,

Dr. Nichols. I cut out there for a second. I had some

audio challenges, but I'm back.

I apologize if staff covered this while I was

off, but I -- I would like to hear about the opportunity

to accelerate the technology around bonnet and scrubber

technologies for ro-ros, if we are going to push them back

a few years, how might we achieve compliance there.

And then I'm also interested in getting

clarification on the cruise ships, containers, and

reefers. I don't think -- for cruise ships, I don't think

it's CARB that's creating their economic distress. It is

something else at the sea, probably COVID. But

nonetheless, if those are going to move to 2023, are they

allowed to maintain under their existing compliance

schedule, assuming there's no difference in the emissions

savings that come from that, will they -- I'm okay with a

difference in allowing them to continue under their

current compliance mechanism, provided there's no

difference in the environmental benefits from that. So

I'd like clarification on that.

And then I just am fully supportive of driving

the tankers forward in terms of both the environmental

benefits and the economic impacts of what's happening

there.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

422

So those were just the only things that I wanted

clarification on as we look towards staff comments. Thank

you.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Staff want to respond on

the basic questions about whether --

EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: This is -- yeah,

thanks, Chair. This is Richard. I'm going to give this a

shot and try and pull together I think several of the

comments that Board members made.

And I'm going to start with Supervisor Serna's

comment, because I think it was a really -- it was an

important question in terms of the wording of delays and

slippery slope, so I want to be clear on this. But we got

many, many requests for delays across the board for each

sector, for reporting, for effective dates. And I'll talk

about one example here, but that's not what is in this

package.

Let me be clear on this, the key theme that is

represented in this conversation follows from the

direction that you all provided in December, which was

emission reductions, public health benefits, in fact,

substantially driven by the pull forward of the oil

tankers, since -- given what is -- you all just discussed.

The -- as several of you noted, the suggestion

concerning those vessels that are already in the reg, in a


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

423

At-Berth Reg, the cruise vessels and cargo containers,

they're in the reg. They're at 80 percent. As Ms. Berg

noted, the suggestion is continue the current reg through

the end of '22 -- 2022. They don't waste benefits by

doing that and then they convert over come 2023 to the new

construct and the additional stringency. So that

provision is streamlining, without emissions loss.

The suggestion on the innovative concept, and

that was the short exchange that Supervisor Gioia and I

had, which was, and we believe, that through a 15-day

change process, we can add some additional language that

recognizes the innovative use application the innovative

concept up to five years, in the event that we don't want

to lose opportunities for early reductions. Provided

again they meet all the criteria, we think there's a

rationale for doing that.

With respect to ro-ros, we've looked at, and

Diane mentioned this, and we certainly looked at ro-ros

visits at Hueneme, San Diego, L.A., Long Beach, where the

majority visit -- makes vessel visits. And as noted,

there's been a substantial reduction. Does it vary by

port? It does, but we looked at each one. And the

original proposal the Board considered in December was

2025, and the request was to look at pulling it forward,

ro-ros. We did to 2024. But as we've looked at the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

424

downturn, we believe from again through the lens of

emission reductions and public health benefits, that there

is a rationale for restoring ro-ros to 2025 and careful

monitoring.

We're going to be reporting to you annually on

the implementation of this reg. And as several of you

noted, within the rule itself, the reg language requires a

comprehensive report to you at the end of 2022 from an

implementation standpoint to inform whether or not, from

your perspective, adjustments need to be made to the

regulation. So it is hardwired in the regulation, and

with a few exceptions. Generally we don't -- why are

those in the regulations? It's a really important point.

It was called out explicitly.

So what I just reviewed with you was areas that I

think we could have a stronger reg by making 15-day

changes that captured the points that I just made, so I'll

stop there.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. I think we've addressed

the question about consultation with the communities on

any alternative compliance plans or innovative compliance

plans. But I just want to be clear that --

EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: Let me -- thanks,

Chair. Let me be clear that. The innovative concept, an

application -- and the reg has considerable detail on what


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

425

an innovate concept -- what could qualify, the criteria,

above and beyond emission reductions, documentation

reporting, also a public process. We need to make

available and discuss applications, because we need them

to be reviewed externally. And what I got from this

conversation was just a little bit more explicit

expectation, in terms of engagement of the 617-related

communities, particularly those that would be near or

coincident to a port, for instance. We can work that into

the process, the expectation that was clear to me that

that's where you'd want us to go to the extent that we get

an application in -- geographically in the regions where

we have 617 communities do this.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yeah, I think you have to do

that. So at this point, I guess I just need to hear

whether there's any sentiment for -- you know, several

people have mentioned things that they might support. The

only person who I think made a specific suggestion of a

change that he would like to propose was Hector for

additional time to work on the ro-ro issue. If anybody

wants to second that and have a discussion, we can. If

not, I think it's going to unfortunately not proceed.

So hearing none at this moment, I'm sorry, but I

think we've got pretty clear instructions to the staff on

what to do next.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

426

So if that is the case, then I think we don't

have to do anything, do we, at this point?

BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL: Madam Chair?

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes.

BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL: I just want to say that

John Gioia has suggested with the innovative concept that

that could be extended to five years.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes, he did.

BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL: And I'm supportive of

that.

CHAIR NICHOLS: He did. Okay

BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL: I'm supportive of that.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes. And so that -- I'm sorry.

I failed to make that note but, yes. Is that an issue

that others are to extend the period of time in which that

would be effect before -- be in effect, so that anyone who

proposes an alternative would have that extra time to

actually implement it and see if it works?

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: I support that. This is

John Balmes.

CHAIR NICHOLS: All right. I think we're okay

with that one then.

Okay. Staff, we don't have to take a formal vote

on this.

Anything else?


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

427

BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: Yeah, Chair, to -- so

I realize that my proposal didn't fly, but Richard just

said 2025, is that where we end up for ro-ros?

CHAIR NICHOLS: Moving to where we had been with

the original proposal that we then move forward and now

we'd be moving it back again.

BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: To where -- yeah, to

where it was.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yeah. Yeah, I think so.

BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: Okay.

CHAIR NICHOLS: I think so.

All right. Is that -- then --

BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: And then one other

thing.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes.

BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: Just to be clear, when

we come back in August, it will just be an up or down

vote.

CHAIR NICHOLS: A final vote.

BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: Today was the

discussion.

CHAIR NICHOLS: That's right.

BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: August is just a vote

on the final package, correct?

CHAIR NICHOLS: That's my understanding.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

428

BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: Okay.

EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: That is correct. The

follow-up from this discussion and the comments that we

received here, and the comments that we got in the 15-day

is to prepare 15-day changes. We'll be preparing those

right after this meeting. They'll be released in the next

few weeks for public comment, and then we'll return to the

Board in August at the August Board hearing, as you both

noted. And that will be an up and down vote on the

package.

BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: (Nods head.)

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Thanks, everybody.

BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL: Madam Chair, if I could.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Yes.

BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL: I do have one more issue,

because Diane brought up the whole issue with the problem

in National City. And are we going to do any further

research on that or what -- how are we going to handle

that.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Well, I took her to say that she

wasn't going to propose -- she wasn't going to be in favor

of any delays that would impact National City, and that

she wanted to see more work done on what could be done in

any alternative proposal that was going to directly

benefit National City. I'm not sure what else was being


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

429

considered.

If missed it --

BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: Well, you know, I was --

CHAIR NICHOLS: Sorry.

BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: Sorry.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Go ahead.

BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: Okay. Thanks. Sorry.

Well, what I heard is that we're moving it back to the

original date of 2025, which I think is unfortunate,

because we know we need to move more quickly, but I also

appreciate that we're looking at the data. And I --

thanks, Judy, I would like to see, for instance, with the

new incentive funding that's coming up even this year, how

CARB staff can help to work with the operator, the

terminal operator, and with the Port of San Diego to help

to get that going, because what I -- I understand -- maybe

this is wrong, but in my conversations with staff, that

technology is quite good and quite ready to be adapted for

ro-ros.

And we've been having this conversation for like

two years. So I feel like staff has done a really good

job, and that I haven't heard a rationale for that to be

delayed. And especially if CARB has some resources that

can be shared, both the actual money to make it happen,

but also the expertise that staff has, that would be what


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

430

I'd be asking for, so that we could move that more

quickly, because I -- it seems like the technology has

advanced already and you all have done great work in

certifying the bonnet technologies, which seem to be the

most appropriate solution for the ro-ros, at least the car

carriers.

CHAIR NICHOLS: I had heard different

information. I don't know that we want to be going on

secondhand information here, but I -- I would disagree

with your statement about the availability or

acceptability of the bonnet technology in terms of how

it's actually working out in implementation. But somebody

else who's got a more authoritative answer may be better

positioned to say something about that. And I don't want

to trash anybody without having them have an opportunity

to speak either. So I don't know that there's any deft

way to deal with this conversation --

(Laughter.)

CHAIR NICHOLS: -- other than to say that I

think -- I think it requires -- the answer is maybe not

quite as straightforward as what you're suggesting.

BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: Well, I wasn't asking

for change in the 15-day change. I was saying I think if

that can continue. And so if I'm misrepresenting it,

Richard --


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

431

CHAIR NICHOLS: No, I have --

BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: -- (inaudible) but I

think --

CHAIR NICHOLS: Again, we're dealing with

secondhand information.

BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: Yeah, so -- so that we

continue on the positive course that we've been on.

That's -- that's what I'm saying.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Good

BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: And maybe redouble our

efforts on a technology that already exists.

EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: Got it.

TRANSPORTATION AND TOXICS DIVISION CHIEF ARIAS:

And this is -- this is Heather. And I hear you,

Diane. Your request for us to follow up with San Diego

Port and help them with technical analyses and we'll do

that.

BOARD MEMBER TAKVORIAN: Thank you.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. Very good. That's a great

response. Thank you, Heather.

All right. Anything else before we move on to

our absolutely last and final item of the day?

Okay. Thanks, everybody. This has been a really

intense discussion. Obviously, people have spent a lot of

time and thought on it, and -- and it's not over yet. But


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

432

I think we've moved it. We've moved this considerably

closer to an ability to make a final decision. So thanks

to all, and all who participated in the hearing as well.

We have an enforcement report. Nobody signed up

to testify on it, and I don't really perceive a need for

discussion. But staff have been waiting patiently and

they did a great report. And I'd like to give them an

opportunity to mention it -- to mention it -- to describe

what's in it. And then if there's any public comment, did

anybody sign up for the public comment section today?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: After the enforcement

report, we can ask people to raise their hand, if they

wish to have an open comment, if that works for you.

CHAIR NICHOLS: I guess, yes. I mean, I think

we're required to do that. So okay. Sure.

Let's hear from the Enforcement staff then.



CHAIR NICHOLS: The report itself is -- it's out.

I think everybody has it. So it's an annual report that

we do and it highlights the Board-wide enforcement

efforts. This is a critical area of our program. In some

ways, the -- everything we do is based on the perception

and the reality of doing a good, and fair, and effective

job with enforcement. So I do want to hear the highlights


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

433

of this report.

Mr. Corey.

EXECUTIVE OFFICER COREY: Yeah. I couldn't have

said it better, Chair, in terms of the enforcement and the

importance of an aggressive, effective enforcement

program, with respect to meeting our air quality goals.

But with that, I'm just going to punt to Nick

Kane of the Enforcement Division.

So, Nick.

ED AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KANE: Thank you, Mr.

Corey. So today, I'll be presenting the 2019 annual

enforcement report.

--o0o--

ED AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KANE: California's

goal is to clean the air and protect the climate. To

achieve this goal, we developed regulations that help meet

air quality standards, protect the public in areas that

are most affected by air pollution, and reduce greenhouse

gas emissions across the State.

Regulations alone do not reduce missions.

Companies invest money and install controls to meet

regulation requirements and generate emission reductions.

We focus on compliance to ensure the emission reductions

envisioned by regulation are actually achieved, and to

provide a level playing field across industry.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

434

--o0o--

ED AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KANE: We use an

iterative process to ensure compliance. Once a regulation

is in place, staff works with industry to provide

assistance. We inspect sources to identify noncompliance

and then investigate and enforce the case. Cases are

resolved when the responsible party achieves compliance

and pays a penalty as a deterrent to future noncompliance.

During this process we learn, gaining an

understanding of compliance rates and identifying areas

where the regulation might be improved. This iterative

process is important, especially when rules impact

hundreds of thousands of regulated entities.

As programs mature, the focus of enforcement

shifts to deterrence through inspections and traditional

enforcement practices.

--o0o--

ED AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KANE: Today, we'll

start by updating you on the results of our enforcement

efforts and then we'll discuss ways in which we're working

to improve our enforcement programs.

--o0o--

ED AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KANE: The statewide

Truck and Bus Regulation is a great example of how using

the iterative process to improve a regulation can result


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

435

in significant improvements in compliance rates.

Enforcement has been an important part of this effort.

We've assessed and published compliance rates, sent

certified letters to every operator in advance of their

compliance deadline explaining what was required to

comply, and implemented a streamlined enforcement process,

which offered a fair legal process to operators, while

dramatically improving enforcement efficiency.

With new statutory requirements, California

registered truck operators now have to demonstrate

compliance before their vehicle can be registered.

--o0o--

ED AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KANE: These efforts

are working. Throughout the streamlined truck enforcement

process, over a two-year period, we withheld registration

for 24,000 noncompliant trucks and collected $5.2 million

in penalties. During this same period, our collective

actions across the board increased the compliance rates in

California registered trucks from 77 to 88 percent. And

these improvements will continue.

--o0o--

ED AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KANE: Our analysis

indicates compliance rates are similar in California

registered trucks and in trucks operating in California

and registered in other states. A significant fraction of


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

436

our inspections occur at weigh stations and border

crossings to deter noncompliant trucks from entering into

and operating in California. When we identify a large

fleet, based outside of California, is violating the law,

we sometimes refer the case.

In 2019, U.S. EPA enforcement of CARB referrals

resulted in six cases settlement and $588,000 in

penalties. And we're working to expand referrals to local

enforcement entities.

--o0o--

ED AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KANE: Previously, we

presented to the Board on the development of the PEAQS

technology, which stands for Portable Emissions

Acquisition System, In 2019 staff built sever PEAQS

systems consisting of an automated license plate reader

emissions measurement equipment and custom software.

Staff deployed a portable systems, shown on the slide and

a stationary system, which operates continuously and is

screening 10,000 heavy-duty diesel vehicles a month.

--o0o--

ED AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KANE: We're also

working to enforce other diesel programs. CARB diesel

technology requirements apply to transportation

refrigeration units. And in 2019, field inspectors

conducted 2,000 TRU inspections and issued more than 900


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

437

citations. CARB requirements also apply to off-road

diesel equipment. In 2019, staff inspected 4,300 pieces

of equipment and issued more than 450 citations.

--o0o--

ED AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KANE: We also

enforce two regulations for ocean-going vessels. The

Ocean-Going Vessel Fuel Sulfur Regulation requires that

vessels operate on low sulfur distillate fuel within 24

nautical miles from shore. And the At-Bert Regulation

requires vessels reduce emissions by turning off their

diesel engines and plugging in to the electrical grid for

power while at berth.

--o0o--

ED AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KANE: Nearly all

vessels comply with fuel requirements. In 2019, we issued

six notices of violation and assessed over $172,000 in

penalties.

--o0o--

ED AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KANE: The At-Berth

Regulation has been very effective. Enforcement is based

on compliance within annual requirements. Fleets report

in March of each year and then staff audits each fleet.

In 2019, we audited 38 fleets covering 3,900 individual

ship visits to California ports in 2018. Our audit of

fleet and ship visit records reveals that overall the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

438

regulation achieved a 77 percent reduction in diesel

engine use. In 2018, the regulatory requirement was 70

percent. So as a whole, industry exceeded what the

regulation required.

--o0o--

ED AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KANE: Even though

industry as a whole met requirements, the playing field is

not level. In 2018, two fleets didn't meet requirements

shown in red on the slide and these fleets are being

investigated. Thirteen fleets met requirements only after

considering relief provided by compliance advisories shown

in yellow on the slide. These advisories allow credit for

visits where emission reductions were not achieved, but

compliance was beyond the control of the operator.

--o0o--

ED AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KANE: We settled two

casings -- two cases for violations of the At-Berth

Regulation in 2019. Both fleets are now in compliance,

and we've established a penalty structure that encourages

fleets to come into compliance as quickly as they can.

--o0o--

ED AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KANE: Certification

requirements apply to a broad range of products, such as

consumer products, composite wood products, vehicles,

engines, aftermarket parts, and fuels.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

439

--o0o--

ED AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KANE: CARB's

consumer product regulations protect consumers and the

environment by establishing VOC emission limits for

products like hairspray -- hairspray and cleaning

solutions, formaldehyde limits in composite wood products,

and ozone limits for indoor air cleaning devices. We

inspect sources to determine compliance and pursue cases

where non-compliance is identified. And we have three

notable causes shown here.

--o0o--

ED AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KANE: Manufacturers

must certify their engines by demonstrating they meet

CARB's stringent emission and durability limits. Earlier

this year, California and the United States settled a

major case with Kohler. Kohler is a manufacturer of small

off-road engines uses in lawn and garden equipment that

did not conform to requirements. And some of the engines

were designed to cheat emission standards. The company

did voluntarily disclose some of these violations.

Working together, the governments brought the

company into compliance. The company forfeited emission

credits and agreed to pay a $20 million penalty

nationally, including $6 million in California.

$1.8 million of California penalties were


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

440

diverted to provide solar-powered battery back-up

generators for low-income consumers affected by public

safety power shutoffs. In 2019, we also settled with Fiat

Powertrain, a heavy-duty engine manufacturer. The company

also did not manufacture the engines as represented,

making changes to products after certification. The

company paid a penalty of $6.4 million, of which two

million was directed to a SEP funding the installation of

high-efficiency air filters in schools.

--o0o--

ED AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KANE: Vehicles sold

in California must also meet certification requirements.

We have two notable cases from 2019 shown on this slide.

--o0o--

ED AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KANE: Emission-

controlled vehicles and engines can't be modified with

uncertified parts. Our enforcement program focuses on all

parts of the supply chain from the manufacturer to

wholesalers, distributors, retailers, and end users. Two

examples of case settlements are shown here. Both

companies sold uncertified aftermarket parts for

non-competition use. Our program -- our enforcement

program provides a deterrent across industry.

--o0o--

ED AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KANE: Our


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

441

Reformulated Fuels Program, establishes specifications to

promote clean-burning fuel and low ozone formation from

evaporative emissions. Our Low Carbon Fuel Standard

decreases the carbon intensities of fuels used in

California.

We enforce these specifications. For example, in

2019, we settled cases with both Phillips 66 and Tesoro,

when we identified and tested fuel that was not consistent

with the certified formulation. Staff recertified the

fuel and assessed a penalty in all three cases.

Clean Energy is an important player in the low

carbon fuels industry. But staff's investigation

identified the company underreported the carbon intensity

of their renewable natural gas over a period of five

years. Staff worked with the company to correct the error

and reconcile LCFS credits. To mitigate excess emissions,

the company agreed to provide grants, loans, and

subsidized contracts to deploy 20 trucks equipped with

ultra-low NOx CNG engines and running on renewable natural

gas. These vehicles must be operated at the Ports of L.A.

and Long Beach or in the San Joaquin Valley. And that

project is being implemented with $800,000. In addition,

the company paid $100,000 for a penalty.

--o0o--

ED AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KANE: Next, we'll


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

442

discuss how we're improving our enforcement programs.

--o0o--

ED AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KANE: In 2019, we

worked to update our enforcement policy ease through a

public process and we published the updated policy in

early 2020. We've also updated our publicly available

website to provide the location and compliance

determination for every inspection we conducted in 2019.

--o0o--

ED AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KANE: Our

Supplemental Environmental Project Program is unique and

it has been very effective, providing benefits from

enforcement penalties directly to communities most

impacted by air pollution. SEPs are projects that

violators fund as a condition of settlement.

In the program, CARB solicits applications for

projects that benefit disadvantaged communities, and we

encourage submittal of projects directly from

disadvantaged community groups. We evaluate each project,

and if it meets qualifications, it is listed as an

eligible SEP. Violators then may choose a project from

this list of eligible SEPs.

--o0o--

ED AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KANE: In 2019, CARB

approved 26 projects eligible for funding and violators


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

443

funded 18 projects with $6 million in penalties.

--o0o--

ED AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KANE: School

filtration projects have been the most popular of our

SEPs. High-efficiency air filters have been installed in

70 schools in total since 2017, and as a direct result of

our program, have affected approximately 42,000 students.

Projects are focused in disadvantaged communities or near

emission sources such as the Roseville Railyard.

--o0o--

ED AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KANE: Our most

diverse and low-income communities are also those most

impacted by air pollution at a local level. Our

enforcement programs work in these areas to keep emissions

as low as possible and address community concerns. In

2019, we conducted more than 60 percent of our inspections

in disadvantaged communities or areas directly benefiting

them.

--o0o--

ED AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KANE: We implement

equipment registration programs to ensure compliance with

CARB requirements. Both the cargo Tank and Portable

Equipment Programs are revenue neutral, meaning that the

programs pay for themselves with the fees they collect.

Cargo tanks transport gasoline. And we're


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

444

working with this industry to implement a compliance

assistance program to improve compliance rates. CARB

regulations now require the phase-out of the dirtiest

portable diesel engines statewide. And we're working with

the air districts to ensure compliance with those

requirements. The use of portable diesel generators has

increased because of Public Safety Power Shutoffs.

--o0o--

ED AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KANE: To mitigate

fire -- wildfire risk, utilities are shutting off power

during high heat and high-wind conditions. These Public

Safety Power Shutoffs have led to increased use of

portable electricity generators, including both smaller

gasoline generators for individual use, and larger diesel

generators for commercial and industrial use.

In October of 2019, millions of people lost power

for days at a time, resulting in emissions roughly

equivalent to 29,000 heavy-duty diesel trucks operating

for an entire month. For the past year, we've been

coordinating with air districts, utilities, and the Public

Utiities Commission to implement programmatic

requirements, and to encourage the use of cleaner

technology.

--o0o--

ED AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KANE: Finally, we're


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

445

continuing to develop our stationary source programs. In

these programs, our role is both in direct enforcement and

in ensuring the districts are enforcing the regulations

where they've signed agreements to do so.

--o0o--

ED AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KANE: So in

conclusion, in 2019, we continued to implement and improve

our strong and effective enforcement programs. We

performed three and a half thousand enforcement actions

and assessed $24.4 million in penalties. We conducted

26,000 inspections and about 60 percent of those took

place in disadvantaged communities. And resulting from

those inspections, staff issued 3,000 citations. We also

saw an increase in compliance rates for several programs,

including the Truck and Bus Regulation, and the

ocean-going vessel regulations for Fuel Sulfur and

At-Berth Shore Power.

And we've made all of our inspection results and

locations available online through the EDVS system. We

directed $6 million in penalties to projects benefiting

disadvantaged communities, and we've continued to expand

and improve our stationary source programs.

--o0o--

ED AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST KANE: The 2019

annual enforcement report is available on our website at


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

446

the location shown here.

Thank you and we'd be happy to answer any

questions that you may have.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you, Nick. I'm sorry this

comes at the end of a long and busy day, but the

information in here is absolutely terrific, really useful,

and I suspect that we and others will be referring to it

as time goes by.

So, thank you, but I think we're -- nobody has

signed up to testify on this one, so I think you're -- I

think you're good to go, unless there's someone who needed

to speak up.

VICE CHAIR BERG: I'm not sure. Let me just

check. Someone is saying something.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Oh, okay.

Yes, hands are up.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Madam Chair, yeah, we have

two members of the public who wish to speak on this item.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Who wanted to speak on the

enforcement report?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Um-hmm.

CHAIR NICHOLS: I also have two hands up from

Board members.


CHAIR NICHOLS: I assume it's on this item. So


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

447

all right, well, let's hear from who -- from the public

then.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Okay. So we have two

members of the public who wish to speak at this time. The

first one is Chris Peeples. I have activated your

microphone.

MR. PEEPLES: No. I'm -- I'm on the open -- open

forum.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Oh. Okay. We'll get back

to you afterwards.

The next one is William Koons. William, I've un

-- I have activated your microphone.

MR. KOONS: Okay. Can you hear me?


MR. KOONS. Hi. I'm William Koons. I'm not sure

if this goes with this segment or with the open forum or

to the open comment, but I -- I recently back about a

month ago came across an AT&T trailer that was smoking.

It was powering. It was a generator trailer, but it was

sitting, you know, stationary. It was sitting powering up

two AT&T panels that apparently they worked on, but they

weren't finished working on them by the street near the

sidewalk.

So I called the mall. It's at the SouthBay

Pavilion. I a called the mall and said can you do


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

448

something about it. It's generating lots of smoke, et

cetera.

Should I go on or should I wait till open forum?

CHAIR NICHOLS: Well, no. I mean, if it were me,

I would have directed you to the Air Quality Management

District. There's --

MR. KOONS: Okay. So ended up calling the fire

department and nobody seemed to want to do anything. I

did eventually call -- since I'm on the community steering

committee, I did call someone. I called -- I reported it

to the AQMD.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Right.

MR. KOONS: And they came out maybe about a week

later, and they told me the reason they can't do anything

about it -- and a week later it was still smoking. They

couldn't do anything about it, because it's under 49

horsepower -- a generator under 49 horsepower. And so

then there's nothing they could do about it. That's the

result.

So I don't know if that's a loophole in the law

or -- so my -- as far as enforcement, it took quite a long

time to get rid of it. It took another week until AT&T

probably -- and did call AT&T also. It took another week

beyond that AQMD, where they came out and removed it and

fixed the panel. So I don't know if that's open comment


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

449

or forum. I'm just saying I -- I see a enforcement issue.

I see a loophole in the law that -- and they say under 49

horsepower does not have to be registered and it's not

controlled. It can smoke any amount it wants.

So I'm just asking the question --

CHAIR NICHOLS: I think the right response here

is to have a member of the staff follow up with you

afterwards. If you leave your contact information with

the Clerk --

MR. KOONS: Okay.

CHAIR NICHOLS: -- we will have somebody get in

touch with you, if that's okay.

MR. KOONS: Okay. How do I do that?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: So you can email me. My

email is COTB, it stands for Clerk of the Board --

MR. KOONS: Hold on a second. Hold on. I've got

to write it down.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: No worries.

MR. KOONS: Again, the email is?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: COTB --

MR. KOONS: COTB as in boy.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Yes -- @arb, as in boy,

.ca --

MR. KOONS: -- .ca?

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: -- .gov as in victor.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

450

MR. KOONS: GOV not a U.S. Okay. ARB.ca.gov --

cotb@arb. Okay. Thank you.

CHAIR NICHOLS: That's it. Thank you.


Madam Chair, that concludes our --

CHAIR NICHOLS: All right. That was the public

comment. Now, we have Board members who also wanted to

comment. So we have hands up from Balmes and De La Torre.

John Balmes, you are first this time.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES: Thank you, Madam Chair.

You know, I use -- I've been on the Board since 2008, and

I have to say -- I have to confess I used to get bored

during the enforcement presentations annually, but I'm not

bored this year. I want to really thank -- or commend the

staff of the Enforcement Division for really doing some, I

think, good and creative work. I especially applaud the

transparency effort to make the public aware of the good

work that you're doing, trying to protect their health by

making sure that we get the emission reductions that we're

supposed to.

And as, you know, somebody who is very much

interested in AB 617, you know, it's part of the -- the

law that we would enhance enforcement. And I really

appreciate that staff of the Enforcement Division is

working to support the CERPs, the community emission


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

451

reduction programs.

And then I have to talk about two wildfire issues

very quickly. I am very involved with discussing with

schools their efforts to reduce wildfire exposures. And

I've heard nothing but praise about our efforts to, you

know, provide funding for school indoor air programs. So

I just want to compliment you on that. And then as

somebody who lost power during October 2019, due to a PG&E

shut-off, and being asked by media is this going to create

more diesel emissions, I mean, the New York Times even

asked me that, I'm glad that we're working to try to

support cleaner alternatives when utilities turn off the

power during wildfires.

So I just want to commend the Enforcement

Division for the good work you're doing.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Thank you. Compliments are

always in season.

Okay. Mr. De La Torre.

BOARD MEMBER DE LA TORRE: I also wanted to

praise enforcement and specifically on the truck

enforcement with DMV. That was a major, major shift in

what we do and how we do it. And working with another

agency, the enforcement numbers, the compliance numbers

were tremendous. We still have a few thousand out there

that we've got to get to and figure out, you know, what


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

452

they're doing and whatnot. But I was very, very impressed

with the implementation of the truck enforcement and look

forward to just, you know, continuing to improve that,

if -- as we're talking about goods movement today, both

big issues were goods movement related. Here, we're doing

something fantastic to enforce the laws that we already

have on the books, so thank you.


All right. I believe that's, yes, a round of

applause virtually for the Enforcement team. And Nick,

congratulations to you and your colleagues.

Okay. This is now really the final item, which

is -- Ryan, if anyone raises their hand and wishes to

comment on a matter within the Board's jurisdiction that

wasn't part of any of our hearing items, they get two

minutes to say whatever they like.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Yes. Thank you, Madam

Chair. We currently have two people, who have raised

their hand for open comment. We first have Chris Peeples.

Chris, I have activated your microphone.

MR. PEEPLES: Thank you. It's been a very long

day. Chair Nichols, members of the Board, my name is

Chris Peeples. I'm an elected at-large member of the

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District. And I just want to

brag a little bit about our roadmap.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

453

We were not the first agency to submit the

roadmap to zero omissions. OmniTrans beat us by about 18

hours. But we are extremely proud of our roadmap. We've

provided you with a copy. I provided the Board Clerk with

a copy to hand out today. I know that eventually you will

get them filtered up through the staff. I would just like

to point out two things about our roadmap.

One is our 30 by 30 by 30 by 30 by 30 test, which

is just starting. We are getting 30 new hydrogen fuel

cell electric buses, 30 new battery electric buses, and

pairing those with our existing diesel electric hybrid

buses and with our straight diesel buses. We are going to

be providing real-world testing with same drivers, same

routes, different kind -- kinds of vehicles every day.

And they can be used to validate your models and NRELS

models.

The other thing that we're is we're setting up a

zero-emission university. We're being the Northern

California group of that. SunLine is doing it in Southern

California. So we will provide training. And our -- the

first out-of-state people are coming in as Illinois,

Champaign, who are buying some new fuel cell buses and

they're going to come to our university and learn how to

repair them.

So you -- this Board has funded much of that, so


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

454

we want to thank you for it, and be proud of our -- of our

roadmap.

Thank you.



CHAIR NICHOLS: Congratulations.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Our last speaker is the K.

Dervin. I have activated your microphone. You can unmute

yourself and begin.

MS. JOHNSON: Hi. This is actually Janet Johnson

from Richmond. I signed in on Kathy's email. I hope you

forgive me. I want to thank you, first of all, for the

Advanced Clean Trucks Bill. I think it's a big step in

the right direction. I'm a member of the Richmond San

Pablo AB 617 air monitoring steering committee. And I am

now part of the design team creating the CERP for

Richmond, North Richmond, San Pablo. I am really, really

concerned about the way that the CERP process is being

handled.

Our air monitoring steering committee has far too

many industry advocates. And when I say industry, I mean

fossil fuel advocates, particularly Chevron. And the

environmental justice advocates on the CERP design team

are determined that the CERP steering committee process is

transparent and community driven.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

455

We have had four -- the last four meetings that

we've had are at a stale -- we've come to a stalemate,

because we want to vote on a conflict of interest form and

the air district won't let us. In fact, they stopped the

meeting early the last meeting, because we were demanding

a vote.

We want -- we understand that the Brown Act that

you've looked at it and decided to punt that to the

Department of Justice, but we -- we really need -- we need

better oversight from CARB. And we meet -- we need as

much support from you as possible, if this is to be a

truly community process. Because right now, it's totally

stage managed by the air district and they're like, you

know, equal time for industry.

Thank you.


BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Thank you. Madam Chair,

that concludes the list of comments for open session.

CHAIR NICHOLS: Okay. We, at this point then,

will stand adjourned until tomorrow morning at 8:30.

Good night, everybody. Celebrate. It was a good

day. We got a lot of good work done.

Bye.

BOARD CLERK SAKAZAKI: Thank you, everybody.

I'll remind you to very quickly, if you want to just exit


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

456

the webinar, go ahead and do that. Otherwise, mute and

disable your video.

Thank you.

BOARD MEMBER BALMES. Thanks, Ryan. You did a

great job today.


(Thereupon the Air Resources Board meeting

adjourned at 7:19 p.m.)


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

457

C E R T I F I C A T E O F R E P O R T E R

I, JAMES F. PETERS, a Certified Shorthand

Reporter of the State of California, do hereby certify:

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the

foregoing California Air Resources Board meeting was

reported in shorthand by me, James F. Peters, a Certified

Shorthand Reporter of the State of California, and was

thereafter transcribed, under my direction, by

computer-assisted transcription;

I further certify that I am not of counsel or

attorney for any of the parties to said meeting nor in any

way interested in the outcome of said meeting.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand

this 11th day of July, 2020.

JAMES F. PETERS, CSR

Certified Shorthand Reporter

License No. 10063


Documents

VIDEOCONFERENCE MEETING AIR RESOURCES BOARD …