MEETING SUMMARY
JOINT TECHNICAL AND POLICY
COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 20 AND 21, 2000 -
CHARLESTON, SC
Attending: Phil Brantley, Brock Nicholson, Laura Boothe, Jeff Carter, Patty
West, Diana Andrews, Charles Davis, John Jansen, John Bunyak, Wilfred
Whitecraft, Cal Ogburn, Kathy Beckett, Pat DalPorto, Jake Gilmer, Jim Browder,
Jim Renfro, Ted Russell, John Daniel, Bruce Bayle, Bob Asplund, Fred Durham,
Kevin Clark, Adrienne Carney, Don Gasper, Mike Stroben, Pat Brewer, Tom Elmore
Sensitivity Preferences: Pat Brewer described the
options and tradeoffs involved in doing state-by-state sensitivity
analyses. After an extended discussion
the group agreed to pursue the following approach:
·
Five
pollutants (SO2, Low level NOx, Elevated NOx, VOC, Ammonia)
·
Eight
SAMI states, full domain, and the difference between the SAMI 8 states and the
rest of the domain
·
Year
2010
·
All
episodes
·
One
strategy (select this strategy by February 1)
By
early January Ted Russell expects to have guidance for the Committee on how
well NOx sensitivities are likely to work and on the linearity of the model
response for the pollutants of interest.
The "racetrack" map approach to sensitivity analyses will
probably not be pursued nor will the longer list of pollutants in the original
sensitivity analysis plan drafted by Georgia Tech. The sensitivities listed above are likely to be the only ones
done if the computers are "turned off" in early fall of 2001.
Bold and BWC Descriptions
The
group worked through Tom's November 14 draft entitled "Proposed Revisions
to Bold and Bold with Constraints" which contained questions from
Pechan.
Nonroad
Question
1. Under nonroad the following
penetration of ZEV (above existing levels of ZEV) is proposed:
Year |
2010 |
2040 |
Bold with Constraints |
10% |
30% |
Bold |
15% |
45% |
Beyond Bold |
30% |
90% |
Question
2 - Aircraft
Assume
the following penetration of clean engines
Year |
2010 |
2040 |
Bold |
10% |
75% |
Beyond Bold |
50% |
100% |
Maureen
Mullen should check with Nancy Kruger with STAPPA/ALAPCO (202) 624-7864 to
determine the difference in emissions between existing and clean engines.
Question
3. Construction, Farm, Logging, Industrial Equipment, and Marine Commercial
Engines: Line four should read 0.2 g NOx/brake horsepower hour.
Question
4. The gasoline and diesel sulfur content
for recreational marine engines should match the fuel sulfur content for
on-road in the same years.
Industrial
Steve
Gossett presented revised recommendations on Bold and BWC for the industrial
sector. The group expressed interest in
a side-by-side comparison of the proposed version and the existing version,
which will be undertaken, on a conference call on November 29.
Added
clarification: For those engines less than the NOx SIP Call threshold (500-2400
HP) apply the following limits:
Year |
2010 |
2040 |
BWC |
Apply limits year-round |
Apply limits year-round |
Bold |
20% reduction |
50% reduction |
Include
cement kiln SIP Call reductions in BWC, Bold and Beyond Bold.
Electric
The
table in the November 14 summary was approved (with the addition of beyond Bold
as previously described).
Nonroad Comments from EPA
Greg
Stella forward two sets of suggestions from EPA related to the nonroad strategy
description for Bold and BWC.
First
set (Greg's comments), Item 5. Cap
emissions as Greg suggests.
Second
set (OTAQ), Item 3. Find out if Pechan
changed the default of 3300 ppm Sulfur to 500 ppm in On-the-way. OTAQ reports that the actual fuel used in
off-road vehicles has a sulfur content of approximately of 3300 ppm. For Bold,
BB and BWC use 3300 but make note if a different number was used in OTW in
interpreting the results.
Incentives to Organizations
Tom
Elmore presented a list of tax deductions offered by Alabama as incentives to
reduce emissions. Several states
reported similar incentives that are seldom used. The group asked staff to develop more information on this topic
including lists of measures considered by other organizations as well as
consultants that know this topic area.
VMT reductions and how to move travel to rail is a particular interest.
SAMI Recommendations
A
wide-ranging discussion revealed a variety of expectations about what the SAMI
final report should include and should not include. A suggestion was made for staff to present the type of
information that modeling is likely to generate. The PC/TOC is interested in participating in describing the
format to be used to present results.
Even without modeling complete, the group may be better able to discuss
recommendations when the nature of the SAMI technical answers is understood. A goal for having this discussion is the
next meeting (below).
Next PC/TOC Meeting
The
next meeting was set for January 23-24 in Charleston SC at the Doubletree
Hotel. A target for starting the
meeting is 1:00 on the 23rd and adjournment by 3:00 on the 24th.
Adjournment