SAMI POLICY COMMITTEE AND
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE JOINT MEETING
DECEMBER 8-9, 1999 -
CHARLOTTESVILLE VIRGINIA
ATTENDING: Ralph Perhac, Mike Teague, John Jansen, Jim
Joy, Tracy Carter, Glen Reeve, John Bunyak, Susan Wierman, Bill Rozette, Don
Shepherd, Ron Methier, Tim Smith, Jan Berry, Laura Boothe, Jim Renfro, Krishnan
Kandasamy, Quincy Styke, Barry Stephens, Holly Sharpless, Arthur Smith, Fred
Durham, Dale Farley, Eldewins Haynes, Jack Taylor, Don Gasper, Patty West, Ken
Barrett, Diana Andrews, Winston Smith, Kathy Beckett, Pat Brewer, Mike Stroben,
Randy Eminger, Phil Brantley, Jerome Thomas, Bruce Bayle, Paul Muller, Pat
DalPorto, Cal Ogburn, Kevin Snape, Tom Elmore, Jim Williams
Connecting Interim Years - The group agreed to use
straight lines to approximate the path of the curve between points spaced at
5-year intervals.
API Presentation
Fuel
cells are expected to generate a 30 to 100% improvement in fuel
efficiency. They are likely to be
cost-competitive about 2010. The fuel
choices are hydrogen, methanol, and hydrocarbon fuels.
MOBILE SOURCES BOLD AND
[BOLD WITH CONSTRAINTS] DISCUSSION
Refer
to chart below.
WHAT DO STAKEHOLDERS REALLY
WANT? DISCUSSION
Refer
to the chart below for the results of the brainstorming session on this
topic. The interests attributed to a
stakeholder group came from that stakeholder in some cases but in other cases
they were attributed to the stakeholder group by a participant from another
group. For example, not politicians were
in the room but the group generally agreed that the interests attributed to
politicians seemed reasonable. This
information is intended to help SAMI move toward recommendations that meet the
interests of all stakeholder groups (win-win solutions) in contrast to
recommendations in which some stakeholders' interests are met and others are
not (win-lose or compromise solutions).
SELF-CRITIQUE
Refer
to chart below.
ADJOURNMENT
MOBILE SOURCES
BOLD AND [BOLD WITH CONSTRAINTS] DISCUSSION
·
LIGHT DUTY MOBILE ON-ROAD
BOLD SCENARIO (BOLD WITH CONSTRAINTS IN
PARENS)
2010
-- All [50%] LEV with LEV defined as the lowest of EPA, California, or Tier II
whichever is most stringent. Fuel is
not specified.
2040
-- All [50%] ZEV powered by fuel cells.
Refinery emissions are assumed to be constant since the expected
increase in VMT is assumed to be matched by an increase in vehicle efficiency.
1990
to 2040 -- Assume a 25% [10%] cut in the rate of VMT growth.
·
2040 HEAVY DUTY MOBILE
ON-ROAD BOLD SCENARIO [WITH CONSTRAINTS IN BRACKETS]
25%
[10%] ZEV
25%
[10%] of VMT to rail
50%
[80%] meet HD diesel standard with 5ppm S Fuel
·
2010 HEAVY DUTY MOBILE
ON-ROAD BOLD SCENARIO [WITH CONSTRAINTS IN BRACKETS]
100%
[100%] use 50 ppm S diesel fuel
50%
[10%] of vehicles meet 2007 HD vehicle standards in 2010
·
NONROAD BOLD SCENARIO [WITH
CONSTRANTS IN BRACKETS]
2010
100% [50%] 50 ppm S fuel
25% [0%] 2007 vehicle standards
100% [50%] airport service to fuel
cells or ZEV
2040 100% 5ppm [50ppm] S fuel for all diesel
applications
100% [50%] 2007 vehicle standards
No [no] ZEV
100% [100%] airport service to fuel
cells or ZEV
Note: Increase rail emissions to
match transfer of VMT from HD on-road (both years and bold plus bold with
constraints)
WIN-WIN
SCENARIO EXERCISE
|
Stakeholder |
Gotta' Have |
|
Staff |
Happy stakeholders |
|
States |
A level playing field
related to regulatory requirements from state to state |
|
States |
Clear FLM expectations on
emission limits (not case-by-case, more certainty) |
|
FLM |
No adverse impact to
resources |
|
Environmental Groups |
1930s levels of SOx and
NOx |
|
EPA |
Meet CAA and Haze Rule
requirements. Show real improvements in
air quality. |
|
Dept. of Energy |
An understanding of
ecosystem effects. An energy-efficient
approach to technological development. |
|
Industry |
An energy-efficient
approach to technological development. Rely on cost/benefit
analyses -- best bang for the buck. |
|
Industry |
Use a rational basis for
decisions. |
|
Industry |
No adverse impact on
competitiveness, particularly for mature industries. Don't rock the economic boat. |
|
Industry |
Level playing field region
to region, fuel to fuel, industry to industry. |
|
States |
Strong consensus and
implementable recommendations. |
|
Dept. of Energy |
Sustainable solutions. |
|
Contractors |
Simple answers. No
backtracking. Clear, direct guidance. |
|
Industry |
Credible justifications. |
|
FLM |
Validation of AQRV
concerns. |
|
Industry |
Flexibility to seek least
cost solutions. |
|
Industry |
Incentives are better than
command and control. |
|
EPA |
Accountability |
|
Politicians |
Re-election. No job loss. Positive economic impact. Limited controversy. Clear guidance. Public support. Consensus. |
|
Public |
Free beer. Information. Minimal lifestyle impact. Healthful air. "It all." Use of natural resources. Nature "on
demand.". "Drive-thru"
nature. |
|
Industry |
Holistic view (e.g.
Consider implications of fuel switches.) |
|
States |
Technology development to
solve environmental problems. |
|
States |
Pollution prevention
approach to process design. |
MEETING CRITIQUE
|
DID WELL |
DO DIFFERENTLY |
|
|
Bigger desserts |
|
Effects meeting down the
hall |
Effects meeting in another
city |
|
Win-Win exercise |
Don talks more |
|
Win-Win exercise earlier
in the day |
Tom solicits Don's
involvement |
|
|
Ask industry to attend |