Good morning. This is Rod Michaelson here in Northern California. There is now an alternative to the CARB regulation called "A Simpler Look." "A Simpler Look - Emissions for the Common Man" was created by my co-author, Keith Wood and myself (both of us large ,15,000hp plus, construction company equipment managers) to give the construction industry and CARB a meeting point where we can clean the air and also not bankrupt the California contractor, trucking company and dealer network that support our industries. An outline is located on my newest blog: Cleanthecaair.blogspot.com and a link to the power point presentation is available on: http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/CARBoffroaddiesel/ I have shown the program now to about 100 contractors, dealers, manufacturers, rental companies, trucking companies and others in the associations and support companies to our industries. Response has been overwhelmingly positive. Showed the power point presentation last Wednesday to CARB staff in Fresno for the first time. Excellent initial reaction. This Monday, I will travel into the belly of the beast. I will be giving the presentation to CARB staff at the EPA building in Sacramento in the afternoon session regarding off-road regulation changes. My presentation will come at the end of the comment period (2pm to 3pm) is my guess. A post meeting seminar on the program will then be held at Pape Equipment in West Sacramento where I will go into more and greater detail on how to implement the program. I have been a member of CARB off-road advisory implementation group for almost three years now. I have represented heavy-civil engineering contractors in an attempt to keep common sense alive in the discussion. We may have made a difference. I can e-mail the presentation on Tuesday to anyone who would like to read it over and can not open the above links. Wish us luck. We will need it. California is in very bad shape. Rod Michaelson Equipment Manager Bay Cities Paving and Grading
Thank you for all of your efforts, best of luck! Brad Dales Brad Dales Excavating inc Penryn Ca
Rod Thank you for all of your effort. I was able to look at your plan yesterday, and I like it. My only fear is it is too simple, so it would not need an army of administrators like the current plan. It is simple, and easy to understand, and gets the job done.
Reply by Steve to CARB staff Kim and Cory, I understand that you have asked for comments on ‘A Simpler Look’ form Rod Michaelson. Here is my 2 cents. For the past 5 years I have been a part of the movement in our area to inform and educate contractors about the Off-road rule. I have watched as the rule grew from a relatively simple and easy to understand document to what I can only describe as an out of control monster. It appears to me that in an attempt to make all stakeholders feel warm and fuzzy about the rule. Staff has gone too far in an attempt to be accommodating to all. At nearly every workshop that I have had the opportunity to attend or view via the webcast. Staff asks for comments and then proceeds to make amendments that only convolute or complicate the rule. Let’s face the facts. Not everyone is going to be happy with anything that comes out of Sacramento. It is my opinion that “A Simpler Look” is a basic and easy to understand option that is a viable solution to the problem and contractors won’t need to hire a lawyer to manage their fleets because they don’t understand the regulation. As a gauge. How many questions were you getting every day due to the complexity of the rule and on-going changes with the addition of credits for everything under the sun? Now, how many questions do you think will come from a simple regulation like “A Simpler Look”? “A Simpler Look” addresses the issues at hand, it complies with EPA guidelines, it is cost effective to manage as an end user, It is flexible enough to follow the economy (up or down), it provides an incentive to upgrade fleets, it provide assistance for stakeholders that are challenged in compliance, it provides an avenue for stakeholders to obtain assistance funding (DTIF) through the industry rather than state subsisted funds and it can be easily adopted to all diesel industries which provides commonality between regulations. In actuality, many stake holders are not just tied to one of the regulations. Most have portable, on-road and off-road equipment and a few also have drayage and harbor craft. The lack of commonality in the regulations makes compliance with all expensive and difficult. A simple solution to this problem is to put all of the regulations under one umbrella with separate branches as “A Simpler Look” can provide. Not everyone is going to be happy with this concept and I don’t believe that was the intent of the authors. However, it does provide a middle of the road solution that will work for most, is economical in all economies and if left alone, will not require the hiring of additional personnel to manage. I not only believe that “A Simpler Look” is a viable solution to the complicated problem of emissions reduction but, it is the best solution for the state economically now and in the future. Thank you fro your time. Steve McDonald
Wow! Common sense gains a foot hold! I'll save my "congratulations" until it becomes adopted as the reg. :drinkup How was your euro-trip btw? Did you learn anything about the European approach to emissions (other than the fact that they do not have CARB to answer to?)
My European trip was stopped by this pesky Icelandic volcano that chose the day I was to fly out of San Francisco for Berlin to close all European air space. Bauma came and went and I stayed in California. By the time the smoke settled, the reason for the trip had passed and I started focusing on this alternative emission regulation plan. Two months later, I think we are on to something. But it can't be done by just a few of us. The more support that can be drummed up for the plan, the less CARB can ignore the facts that simple can be better. Simpler is not in a bureaucrat's DNA, but can be we might be able to cause a mutation in the gene. No congratulations are in order yet. But support would be very helpful. If this gets adopted, I'll take that European trip, but purely for pleasure this time! I have missed alot of really good beer because of this. Rod
Rod, I'd like to see your plan but can't seem to find the right button to click.
Dan, I'll send the power point to you and anyone else interested. Just e-mail me at [email protected]
http://cleanthecaair.blogspot.com/2010/07/simpler-look-overview-posted-on-arb.html Made progress with CARB. Now have the presentation on their website. Have a good 4th of July to my fellow Americans. Rod Michaelson
I agree, the biggest problem is IT MAKES FAR TO MUCH SENSE!
To make sense of CARB you can not expect to deal with them as business people. You have to only think as politicans and social engineers. The more you think that they understand business, like you and me, the more frustrated you get. We have to change the mind set of the society that supports the CARB mentality. Here in California, our only real option is Meg Whitman and removing the current California Air Resources Board members and placing some business friendly board members. Otherwise, the "ruling class" will destroy what we understand as the "American Dream." Rod Michaelson
I agree i pray that meg whitman gets elected. If jerry brown gets in its the end of buisness in california as we know it. PERIOD.
I look to you folks to make things happen across the state! As some of you know Jim Engstrom, professor from UCLA, has been terminated ostensibly for his stance on the diesel engine rule and the junk science and scandal behind it. In my opinion, which is based upon twenty years of advocacy, this could be a cloud with a silver lining. First, we all know that one particular aspect of Climategate was the squelching of opposition science. People on all sides of the debate find this offensive, if they were only paying attention. Second, virtually everybody is outraged when a bonafide whistleblower gets canned. Third, nobody likes government cover-ups. So, we have a professor with bonafide academic credentials who disputes the junk science behind the diesel engine rule. We have CARB staffer who faked his PhD and Mary Nichols who covered it up. Enstrom blows the whistle. And who gets fired? Enstrom. What I am saying is this is NEWS! What we have to do is package this in the context of Prop 23/AB32!!! We need a high profile whistle blower/wrongful termination lawsuit. We need to put this Professor, his credentials, his science and this whole scam out there for everyone to see. This should weaken Arnold and CARB in one blow as they proceed on Prop 23/AB32 We need to barrage the UC System for being part of the coverup as they are more concerned about money for research than academic integrity… We need an investigation, editorials, radio interviews, speaking engagements and a rally!!! The campaign and industry in general should recruit Enstrom and put him on the circuit…. Andy Caldwell COLAB
("Air board still scandalous") repeats discredited claims that the health science related to fine particles emitted from diesel-fueled engines and other sources is too uncertain to support the California Air Resources Board's tough emissions limits. To the contrary: Last month, the U.S Environmental Protection Agency issued a report approved by the federal Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory Committee concluding that there is a causal relationship between exposure to these fine particles (known as PM2.5) and premature death, and includes estimates of premature deaths linked to PM2.5 in cities throughout the country, including Los Angeles and Fresno. The report also provides a new factor for estimating premature deaths associated with PM2.5 that the ARB will rely on going forward. The U.S. EPA and its Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory Committee considered evidence from multiple peer-reviewed studies, including studies pointing to plausible biological mechanisms for cardiovascular deaths associated with PM2.5. A 2009 peer-reviewed American Cancer Society study, which followed nearly half a million people in 116 cities, found premature death linked to PM2.5 – including in Los Angeles. While the relative proportion of PM2.5 constituents can vary, California cities have a mix of pollutants quite similar to that found in other cities. Diesel defenders cite a handful of California-specific studies that failed to find PM2.5 particles as a health hazard in California but ignore the weight of evidence from multiple studies. While the ARB-commissioned study referenced in the editorial did not produce results identical to the American Cancer Society study, preliminary findings show a correlation between death from heart disease and exposure to PM2.5. Other California studies are consistent with the national studies. These issues were expressly discussed and debated in a public symposium conducted by CARB in February of this year. Peer-reviewed studies have always been the source of health findings cited in CARB reports. It's time to recognize that CARB has a legal obligation to reduce PM 2.5 emissions to meet federal air quality standards by the 2014 deadline, and that the science and the health basis for that mandate is as strong as ever. JAMES N. GOLDSTENE Executive Officer California Air Resources Board