23   example in a recent analysis we actually used models of fire

24   spread and fire suppression to look at predicted changes in

25   climate in different regions of California.  And what we see

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               153

 1   is that because fires are predicted to burn hotter and

 2   spread faster they are much harder to suppress.  They escape

 3   initial attack suppression.  And fires that escape are the

 4   fires that can go on to become catastrophic fires.  Those

 5   are the large fires that do all the damage.

 6             What we found was that with continued high

 7   emissions the number of potentially catastrophic fires in

 8   California, and this was for Northern California, will

 9   double.  We've redone the exercise also for Southern

10   California and again see very high rates of increase in

11   what's predicted to occur for escape.  So those are the

12   number of fires that could become large fires.  And I will

13   say that that increase occurs even though we let fire

14   suppression be ramped up in those scenarios.

15             So how bad will it be?  It certainly depends on

16   how much climate changes and how fast.  So as you can see

17   from this graph, what you also saw earlier in the morning,

18   the increase in the number of large fires depends on the

19   emission scenarios.  That yellow bar is lower warming range,

20   the blue bar is medium warming range.  And since more

21   emissions will give more warming we can see that the higher

22   warming or higher emissions have much higher increase in

23   fires.

24             The other thing to notice here, it was probably

25   already mentioned, is that the fire in the photo in the

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               154

 1   background there is that Southern California fire in 2003,

 2   October, that I mentioned.  Those are pollution plumes.

 3   Those are aerosols, CO, other species that help form smog in

 4   the state.  And they happen to be going offshore here but

 5   you can see how big an effect wildfires can have on air

 6   quality over a very large area.

 7             So this is the question, I think.  In California

 8   we spend a lot of time and a lot of area of the state in

 9   very high fire danger.  We have a long fire season.  And the

10   question is, where will climate change put us on this graph.

11   Thank you.

12             PRESIDING OFFICER GRUNDLER:  Thank you very much.

13             Dr. Mike Kleeman.

14             DR. KLEEMAN:  Thank you for the opportunity to

15   present testimony here today.  I'll begin as others did with

16   a quick summary of my qualifications in this matter.  I'm a

17   professor of civil and environmental engineering at the

18   University of California at Davis where I teach

19   undergraduate and graduate classes.  I've earned a

20   bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering and then

21   master's and PhD in environmental engineering science from

22   the California Institute of Technology.

23             I have published more than 40 papers on urban and

24   regional air pollution problems with a focus on ozone and

25   airborne particles in California.  I'm a principal

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               155

 1   investigator for three current projects funded by the US EPA

 2   and the California Air Resources Board dealing with climate

 3   and air quality in California and I am an expert in those

 4   areas.

 5             There's two main components of photochemical smog,

 6   those being ozone and airborne particles.  And the health

 7   effects I'm sure are well known to you at this point from

 8   both of those pollutants and so I won't deal with them other

 9   than to say that California routinely exceeds the accepted

10   health-based standards for these pollutants and we have to

11   do something to protect public health.

12             I am going to focus my comments on ozone today

13   because I believe that the weight of scientific evidence,

14   even at this early stage, supports robust conclusions in

15   that matter related to climate change.

16             California has the world's sixth largest economy,

17   depending on the year that you measure it, and all of this

18   activity is taking place in some very confined air basins.

19   The South Coast Air Basin labeled on this map is home to Los

20   Angeles with a population of around 15 million people.  That

21   means that approximately 1 in every 20 people in the United

22   States lives in Los Angeles.  So it's a very significant

23   number of people living in that air basin.  It has arguably

24   the worst air quality in the United States as well.  The San

25   Joaquin Valley, a slightly larger air basin, is home to 3

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               156

 1   million people.  It is one of the most rapidly growing areas

 2   in California right now.

 3             And no other place in the United States has the

 4   level of economic activity, the level of population, in such

 5   confined air basins.  So there's a reason that California

 6   has such severe air quality problems, because we have all

 7   this economic activity in such well-confined air basins.

 8             So how will climate change affect air quality in

 9   California?  Well, the confined air basins are only one part

10   of the problem.  When the weather patterns produce stable

11   atmospheric conditions we have a very stagnant atmosphere

12   and we trap all of those emissions close to the earth's

13   surface where we will breathe them.

14             By definition then it means that climate change

15   will have an effect on air quality in California.  There's

16   temperature and relative humidity effects to consider, cloud

17   cover.  All of these things related to climate change will

18   influence the air quality system.  In order to try to

19   understand what the dominant effects are we try to use model

20   calculations and we try to look at the historical

21   measurement record to try to understand in which direction

22   climate change will push those things.

23             What I am showing you here is one example of a

24   study where we predicted ozone concentrations for Los

25   Angeles.  And this is a typical episode, a severe

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               157

 1   photochemical episode in Los Angeles.  We're looking at the

 2   predicted one-hour concentrations of ozone in the region.

 3   And the health-based standard, one health-based standard

 4   that one could look at would be 90 parts per billion as an

 5   acceptable level and we can see that we're almost three

 6   times that level.  I show this to you to emphasize that this

 7   is a well-studied episode.  It has been the focus of many

 8   publications.  And we think that we understand the dynamics

 9   that produce ozone formation in this episode.

10             The question then would be, what would happen if

11   we would increase the temperature in that episode by five

12   degrees?  What would we see?  And just due to the chemical

13   reactions speeding up and the thermal decomposition of some

14   chemical reservoir species we get an additional 60 parts per

15   billion of ozone in this episode due to that increased

16   temperature.

17             Now there are other things that happen at the same

18   time.  It's not just the effect of climate on chemistry that

19   matters, there is also an effect on increased emissions.  We

20   know that biogenic emissions from plants increase at hotter

21   temperatures.  We know that evaporative emissions from

22   mobile sources increase at hotter temperatures.  And we

23   expect that power plant emissions of oxides of nitrogen will

24   also increase at hotter temperatures due to increased

25   electrical demand.  And those higher emissions will

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               158

 1   generally then lead to higher concentrations of ozone.

 2             It's actually worse than that because the

 3   background ozone levels are also increasing over time.  If

 4   we look at the record, the measured record of ozone

 5   concentrations that are blowing into California from upwind

 6   sources, just sort of background ozone concentrations, those

 7   are going up over time due to various effects, emissions

 8   worldwide.  And we expect that trend to continue.

 9             Any ozone that blows into California adds to the

10   ozone that we produce locally.  The majority of our ozone

11   currently is produced locally but every increase in the

12   background ozone concentration reduces the amount that we

13   can afford to produce before we impact public health.  And

14   so the status quo isn't enough.  We really have to address

15   this problem, it's changing over time.

16             This is a study performed by Harley and coworkers

17   at the University of California at Berkeley where they

18   looked at the combined effect of these different changes

19   that will happen in the future related to climate and

20   emissions controls and tried to see what the dominant

21   effects were.  And I want to point out several things on

22   this plot.  The first one is the effect just of temperature,

23   here shown in this first cluster, on the ozone

24   concentrations in Central California for Fresno, Sacramento

25   and the Bay Area.  And we're looking at the percentage

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               159

 1   change of ozone.  Increased temperatures in the future are

 2   expected to increase ozone concentrations and that's

 3   consistent with what other studies have shown.

 4             The emissions effect of biogenic VOCs is also

 5   present.  You can see that the effect of increased

 6   temperatures in the year 2050 on emissions from plants will

 7   increase ozone concentrations.  And the boundary conditions

 8   will also go up over time and that increases ozone

 9   concentrations as well.

10             California is combatting this problem with

11   emissions controls and so you see here the fourth column

12   shows a large negative change in the ozone concentrations

13   and that is due to the anticipated effect of the emissions

14   controls that California is going to apply.

15             What I want to show though, I want to contrast the

16   magnitude of that change in the concentrations that's driven

17   by the emissions controls to the change that climate would

18   mitigate onto that system.  And so the final cluster here

19   shows the combined effect of simultaneous changes in

20   emissions controls and then the climate penalty that is

21   imposed.  And what you can see is that the climate changes

22   that we see happening in the future are of sufficient

23   magnitude to completely offset all of the emissions benefits

24   that we gained in the Bay Area.  And to reduce significantly

25   the benefits to ozone concentrations in the other areas, in

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               160

 1   Fresno and Sacramento in Central California.

 2             And so that means that California will have to

 3   work harder.  California will have to implement additional

 4   emissions controls in order to offset the climate penalty

 5   that we see coming from climate change.

 6             So just in conclusion, California's air basins

 7   currently exceed the health-based standards, we have to do

 8   something.  Background ozone concentrations are going up

 9   over time and the status quo is not enough.  The weight of

10   scientific evidence suggests that temperature will increase

11   in California and this will have impacts on ozone

12   concentrations and it will impose a climate impact on

13   California, or a climate penalty on California, where we

14   have to reduce emissions even further in order to achieve

15   the same level of ozone control in the state.

16             With that I'll thank you.

17             PRESIDING OFFICER GRUNDLER:  Thank you for your

18   testimony.

19             Next I'd like to invite Dr. Louise Jackson to

20   present.  Welcome.

21             DR. JACKSON:  Thanks for inviting me here and

22   thanks for the opportunity to speak.  My name is Louise

23   Jackson.  I am a professor and extension specialist at the

24   Department of Land, Air and Water Resources at University of

25   California at Davis.  I am also the Orr Chair in Plant

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               161

 1   Environmental Sciences.  For most of my career I have worked

 2   on ecosystem processes in agricultural and grassland systems

 3   in California and I'd like to speak today about the impacts

 4   that I believe are very serious for California agriculture.

 5             Agriculture in California only produces less than

 6   eight percent of the greenhouse gas emissions at present.

 7   But agriculture will suffer a disproportionately large

 8   impact from any results of climate change.  That has a big

 9   impact on the United States as a whole.

10             California has the most productive area in the

11   United States in terms of agriculture.  It produces half of

12   the nation's fruits and vegetables, 19 percent of the dairy.

13   And about 85 percent of California agricultural products are

14   used within the United States.

15             We have many diverse commodities with very unique

16   growing conditions.  You can see from the top ten that many

17   are specialty crops.  Crops that have special requirements

18   for temperature and moisture that are hard to satisfy.

19             California agriculture supports a lot of

20   employment, especially in the Central Valley, and many

21   farms.  So if there are impacts on agriculture from climate

22   change California will definitely feel the pinch.

23             Some people have hypothesized, well maybe higher

24   CO2 will increase plant growth, a benefit for agriculture.

25   In reality the new studies that are coming out are showing

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               162

 1   that we won't under most actual growing conditions see more

 2   than about a five to eight percent increase in vegetative

 3   growth due to CO2 enrichment.  That's because other factors

 4   such as water are limiting.

 5             The other big issue, especially for specialty

 6   crops, is that crop developmental responses are much more

 7   complex than a simple increase in growth from enriched CO2.

 8   One example is fruit trees.  Fruit trees have winter

 9   chilling requirements.  For example, fruit trees, we count

10   those in chill hours, the number of hours per year that are

11   less than 45 degrees, for example.

12             Already in the last century there has been a

13   reduction of 50 to 500 hours per year in different growing

14   regions in California.  And you can see that that's a

15   significant proportion of the hours required by fruit trees

16   to flower and we're already seeing events such as in 2004

17   for peaches where low chilling requirements have prevented a

18   good harvest of crops.

19             On the other side of the slide I've listed a

20   number of factors that will affect California's specialty

21   crops.  For example tomatoes have reduced fruit number at

22   temperatures of above about 100 degrees.  For lettuce we

23   might see higher growth rates in some of our cool season

24   times of the year but bolting, which is the onset of

25   flowering, can increase above about 70 degrees and there is

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               163

 1   increased tip burn as well.  So some of our coastal areas,

 2   even if they experience slight increases in climate change,

 3   may see problems for lettuce, which is one of our main crops

 4   in California.

 5             For rice at higher temperatures we see reduced

 6   yields.  I've already spoken a little bit about stone

 7   fruits.  Chilling requirements, decreased fruit size and

 8   quality.  Citrus is one of the crops that may actually

 9   benefit from climate change.  What we might expect with

10   citrus is to see the citrus production move further north

11   because there's reduced frost losses during the winter.  For

12   grapes the speculations and models seem to suggest that we

13   get premature ripening and reductions in quality and yield

14   variability at higher temperatures.

15             There's a lot of unknown challenges as well.  The

16   newest research that is coming out is suggesting that water

17   use will increase but that there is a unique response for

18   each commodity.  So even though there is some CO2 enrichment

19   that might reduce -- that might increase water use

20   efficiency the results of higher evaporation will increase

21   water use.

22             As we just heard about ozone, it is likely to

23   increase.  And ozone affects not only humans but plants.

24   Already we are seeing probably about a five to ten percent

25   decrease in yields due to ozone as it stands today in the

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               164

 1   Central Valley.

 2             Crop pests are our biggest unknowns.  Some

 3   diseases are likely to increase with warm, wet scenarios

 4   compared to warm, dry scenarios.  For example, downy mildew

 5   in lettuce, which is a major pest.  Insect pests are likely

 6   to be more likely to survive during winter but then leaf

 7   quality due to lower nitrogen, which is typical of plants

 8   growing under high CO2, might deter some of the damage.

 9   There might be some new C4 species, weeds that can grow

10   under higher temperatures arriving in California.  These are

11   things we just don't know but have to plan for.

12             There is also in the cattle and dairy cows a

13   likelihood of lower milk yield at higher temperatures of

14   above 100 degrees.

15             This is an example of some modeling that was done

16   for the Pink Bollworm in cotton showing that this insect

17   pest, which is now just in the southern desert areas, if the

18   winter temperatures were to rise to about 2.7 degrees

19   Fahrenheit in the winter we'd see increased prevalence of

20   that pest in the southern growing regions.  If it increases

21   to 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit we'll start seeing the pest in the

22   Southern San Joaquin Valley where now it is not present due

23   to the winter frosts that exist in the northern area.

24             So to sum up what I'd like to do is emphasize the

25   fact that as global warming increases so do the impacts on

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               165

 1   California agriculture.  Agriculture is very sensitive to

 2   temperature change so that even small changes can have a big

 3   effect.  Right now we are already seeing heat waves that

 4   cause crop damage, especially to specialty crops.  But under

 5   high emission scenarios we'd expect to see double the heat

 6   waves that we will at lower emission scenarios.  We would

 7   expect to see eventual loss of important commodities,

 8   especially at high emissions.

 9             We are going to have to invest quite a bit of

10   money into crop and livestock breeding for heat tolerance

11   and possibly drought tolerance as well.  One very likely

12   issue is that land use will change.  Specialty crops will

13   move north and south and that is a big cost to industries

14   that have whole production systems arranged in specific

15   areas.  And there is also some speculation that urbanization

16   may increase if there is precariousness of different kinds

17   of specialty crop production.

18             As we've already heard, dry scenarios are very

19   likely to bring high economic costs in crop failure to

20   agriculture.  And the likelihood is we'll see some of our

21   mainstay agronomic crops, such as alfalfa, cotton, rice,

22   irrigated pasture that uses a lot of water, be replaced with

23   either crops with lower water demand or other land uses.

24             We're going to need a lot of technological

25   improvement for water conservation.  And even more

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               166

 1   expensive, as you just heard about, is the fact that there

 2   is going to be needs for levees and water storage to keep

 3   the deliveries going to California agricultural areas.  Even

 4   if we have more water in the lowland areas we still need to

 5   deliver it.

 6             So the conclusion that I would like to present is

 7   that when we are looking at high emission scenarios over the

 8   next 50 to 100 years for California agriculture they are

 9   likely to bring economic hardship, loss of livelihoods and

10   instability of rural communities to California.  Thank you.

11             PRESIDING OFFICER GRUNDLER:  Thank you,

12   Dr. Jackson.

13             Dr. Dale.

14             DR. DALE:  Thank you.  My name is Larry Dale, I

15   work at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.  I have been

16   Associate Director at the California Climate Change Center

17   for the last couple of years.  And I'll report on some of

18   the results of that work here largely related to water and

19   to some degree energy use and the impacts of climate change

20   on those production activities.  I keep publishing all these

21   papers and climate change studies but my mother will never

22   be impressed with me, I think.  (Laughter)

23             PRESIDING OFFICER GRUNDLER:  Will you make sure

24   your mic is on, please.

25             DR. DALE:  Is it on?

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               167

 1             As you have heard, water is essential to

 2   California's development.  We are a semiarid state.  We've

 3   got 35 million people here and none of us would be here if

 4   in one way or another we couldn't get some water either to

 5   agriculture or to the urban areas where we live.  This

 6   development has been made possible by overcoming a

 7   fundamental mismatch in the timing of when water comes in

 8   the form of winter precipitation and snow and when we need

 9   it.  We use about 75 percent of the water in the summer,

10   largely for agriculture.

11             This mismatch has been resolved or is resolved by

12   an elaborate system and a mix of both manmade storage,

13   that's our reservoirs, and natural storage, which is the

14   snow about which you've heard so much already.

15             Now climate change threatens half of that storage,

16   which carries over the water when it comes and when we need

17   it.  If emissions continue unabated, as you saw  the

18   predictions are we're going to lose most of the snowpack.

19   If we manage to curb emissions we can keep most of the

20   snowpack.  This is important.  If we lose the snowpack we

21   lose half the effective water storage used to bridge this

22   time gap that I talked about.

23             This can have many adverse effects on the state,

24   some of which you've heard.  There's higher flood risk.

25   Instead of that water falling and staying up in the

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               168

 1   mountains as snow it can all come down in one big rush.

 2   This place could be underwater some day.

 3             There will be more droughts.  Under the climate

 4   scenario predictions that we've looked at using the climate

 5   models and the state models for water supply we see that

 6   over half the years would be classified as dry or critically

 7   dry years.  That would mean lower divergence to farmers.  In

 8   critically dry years now many farmers, many parts of the

 9   Central Valley that produce these crops that Louise was

10   talking about would get no surface water supply.

11             Now the cost to the state of all these things, I'm

12   an economist, I'm supposed to come up with a number.  But

13   the cost is likely to depend on what we do as a state.  And

14   the first reaction, in my opinion, is going to be an ironic

15   one but we're going to increase the amount of electricity we

16   use.  Here we are trying to curb emissions, climate change

17   is going to force us to increase electricity use unless

18   we're careful.

19             This would happen because first farmers would do

20   as they have always done in the past.  When they don't get

21   surface water they start pumping ground water.  Enough years

22   elapse and the studies we have done show ground water levels

23   could be falling permanently 200, 300 feet down.  That means

24   a big increase in electricity use to get the water.

25             Similarly in urban areas the reaction will likely

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               169

 1   be to increase desalination plants, recycling plants, both

 2   of which require large amounts of electricity.  So do long

 3   distance transfers of water to the state.

 4             Again, this is an ironic feature of what can

 5   happen because we'll be doing large efforts to curb our

 6   emissions but at the same time our demand is going to be

 7   growing.

 8             In my opinion this reaction is not going to be

 9   sustained because I think we'll also do what we have done in

10   order to avoid this for farmers and that is build new

11   storage reservoirs.  These are expensive but there is

12   potential to do this.  And if you want a number to hang on

13   to as a notion of what the climate change can cost the state

14   think of what it costs to build new storage in this state.

15             The estimates from the latest federal and state

16   studies suggest the costs range between $700 and $4,000 an

17   acre-foot of storage.  The snowpack losses we've talking

18   about average about eight million acre-feet of storage.  So

19   that's a number like $11 billion.  That's a rough estimate

20   of what it can cost the state due to climate change.  If we

21   curb emissions we can cut those costs in half.

22             So to sum up, water is essential to the economy.

23   The snowpack is needed to bridge the timing of when water

24   come and when we need it.  Climate change can eliminate a

25   lot of that bridge, a lot of that storage.  And while the

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               170

 1   economic impacts are hard to quantify, if we assume we're

 2   going to be building storage to make up for the loss of

 3   snowpack the costs can range up to $11 billion.

 4             PRESIDING OFFICER GRUNDLER:  Thank you very much.

 5   Any questions from the panel?

 6             PANELIST HOROWITZ:  I have a question for the

 7   entire panel.  Earlier today we heard testimony from the

 8   auto manufacturers that there is no evidence that the

 9   greenhouse gas standards that we are talking about today,

10   even if they were applied nationwide, would have any effect

11   on the consequences of climate change that you have been

12   talking about on the panel.  Does anyone on the panel have

13   any comment about that?

14             DR. GLEICK:  I'll make a short one.  It's wrong.

15             PANELIST HOROWITZ:  Okay.  Anything you can say to

16   back that up or put in your written comments would be --

17             DR. GLEICK:  Well sure.  Other people have already

18   testified with specific numbers but the transportation

19   sector alone accounts for a very substantial fraction of

20   national greenhouse gas emissions and a larger fraction of

21   California's emissions.  It is obvious these standards would

22   have an enormous effect in the long run on reducing our

23   emissions.  You have also heard testimony from the other

24   states that there are a number of other states willing to

25   adopt California's standards as we move forward.  It's one

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               171

 1   piece of a large strategy to reduce emissions, it is not a

 2   silver bullet, but it's an important component of an overall

 3   strategy.

 4             DR. BALES:  There is no silver bullet but if you

 5   want to reduce greenhouse gases you look for sources of CO2

 6   emissions that can be reduced and the transportation sector

 7   has to be part of that mix.

 8             PRESIDING OFFICER GRUNDLER:  Thank you again for

 9   taking the time to present such thoughtful testimony.

10             I'd like to invite the next panel, which is

11   comprised of a number of non-governmental organizations.

12   Please come up.

13             I'd like to remind everyone that these proceedings

14   are being webcast so hopefully you've told your family

15   members the website so that they can watch you.  (Laughter)

16             I'd like to invite Mr. Russell Long to present the

17   first testimony.

18             MR. LONG:  If it's okay with all you I'd like to

19   defer to Patricia Monahan at Union of Concerned Scientists

20   who has, she has a previous obligation to leave.

21             PRESIDING OFFICER GRUNDLER:  That would be fine.

22             MS. MONAHAN:  To pick up my children so thanks for

23   your accommodation.  My name is Patricia Monahan.  I am the

24   Deputy Director of Clean Vehicles for the Union of Concerned

25   Scientists and I am also the California Office Director.  My

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               172

 1   comments today are on behalf of UCS and our over 240,000

 2   members and activists.  UCS is a leading science-based

 3   nonprofit working on solutions to major environmental

 4   challenges like global warming.  UCS's transportation

 5   program was born in California in 1991 and we have been

 6   working here for 15 years on policies and regulations to

 7   strengthen California's vehicle emission standards.

 8             We urge EPA to allow California and the 11 other

 9   states to implement tailpipe emissions standards for global

10   warming pollution from cars and trucks.  Global warming is

11   the gravest environmental challenge humankind has faced and

12   you have heard from a number of reputable scientists on the

13   impacts here in California, which are significant.  By

14   allowing states to act now we make it easier to avoid the

15   most catastrophic impacts of climate change.

16             California's greenhouse gas standards for vehicles

17   are achievable through fuels and technologies available

18   today.  California's standards require a 34 percent

19   reduction in global warming pollution for cars and light

20   trucks and a 25 percent reduction for larger trucks and SUVs

21   within the next ten years.  Auto makers can build affordable

22   vehicles with existing technology that would meet or exceed

23   California's global warming pollution standards.  At UCS we

24   have created a minivan design that shows how auto makers

25   could meet the standards using a combination of vehicle

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               173

 1   technology and low carbon fuels available today.

 2             Our minivan, which we have dubbed the UCS

 3   Vanguard, runs on E85 fuel and features engine, transmission

 4   and vehicle designs available today.  The Vanguard reduces

 5   global warming pollution by more than 40 percent, which

 6   exceeds California's emissions standards.  This technology

 7   package would cost only $300 and would save the consumer

 8   over $1300 in reduced fuel costs.

 9             All of the technologies in the Vanguard are in

10   vehicles on the road today but auto makers have yet to

11   combine them in a single package.  We have a UCS Vanguard

12   brochure that on the back, which I'll be submitting, has a

13   list of all the vehicles that are available today with the

14   package of technologies that we employed on the Vanguard.

15             This package can be achieved with no sacrifice in

16   performance or size.  And wince we're using off-the-shelf

17   technologies we're not talking pie in the sky, we're not

18   even talking hybrid.  If you want to see more you can check

19   out our website which has more detail on the features but

20   I'll be discussing some of the more prominent ones on the

21   Vanguard.

22             The Vanguard minivan design's key components can

23   be found piecemeal in more than 100 vehicle models on the

24   road today.  The Vanguard uses conventional technology to

25   achieve significant reductions in global warming pollution.

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               174

 1   Here are some of the technologies that we employed:

 2             Variable valve and timing on engines, such as the

 3   Honda VTEC.  Cylinder deactivation, or as GM calls it,

 4   Active Fuel Management, which actives the cylinders when you

 5   need them.  Automated manual transmission, which is in the

 6   Audi A3 and in several VW models like the Jetta.  that

 7   blends the performance of a manual with the ease and

 8   convenience of an automatic.  Six speed transmissions, which

 9   are in Ford Explorers and almost all BMWs.  Air conditioning

10   with better hoses and more efficient compressors.  Improved

11   aerodynamics and tires that reduce the load on vehicles.

12   Electrification of components such as the steering on

13   Acura's NSX.  And flex-fuel capability to allow the vehicle

14   to use E85.  The technology package on the Vanguard can be

15   used on the smallest cars to the largest trucks.

16             The Vanguard shows that global warming pollution

17   reduction is possible with technologies and fuels used in

18   cars today with no sacrifice required of the consumer.

19   Vehicles meeting the standards have the same size, same

20   acceleration, and same safety characteristics of higher

21   polluting vehicles.  And the consumer actually saves money.

22             We urge EPA to grant the waiver to allow

23   California and the 11 other states who have adopted the

24   standards to move forward immediately.  By using technology

25   already in vehicles on the market today the auto industry

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               175

 1   can build no compromises cars and trucks that meet

 2   California's standards and the consumer's passenger-

 3   carrying, load-hauling and performance needs.

 4             Historically auto makers have opposed basic safety

 5   and emission standards, making exaggerated claims about the

 6   cost of seat belts or catalytic converters.  Auto companies

 7   need to look forward to a future with cleaner vehicles,

 8   rather than always looking into the rear view mirror at the

 9   past.  It's time to make auto companies put their talented

10   engineers to work on designing cleaner vehicles.  Thank you.

11             PRESIDING OFFICER GRUNDLER:  Thank you.

12             Mr. Long.

13             MR. LONG:  I'm Russell Long and I am speaking on

14   behalf of the 80,000 members of Bluewater Network and

15   Friends of the Earth today.

16             In January 2001 our organization developed a

17   relatively simple legislative solution for reducing

18   greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles.  With

19   Assemblywoman Pavley we introduced a bill that would reduce

20   such emissions to the maximum, feasible and constant effect

21   of extent possible.  The goal was to prevent global warming

22   by holistically targeting all of a cars' greenhouse gas

23   emissions rather than focusing simply on tailpipe emissions

24   as had been the practice with criteria pollutants.  Our goal

25   was also to provide continuing authority for the state to

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               176

 1   make further improvements in the future.

 2             And in deference to the auto industry's analyst's

 3   concerns about the need for regulatory flexibility there

 4   would be no specific mandates on how the industry should

 5   meet the targets.  This approach would for the first time

 6   open the door to reductions in nitrous oxide emissions from

 7   catalysts, HCFCs from AC units, the carbon content of the

 8   fuels themselves, something that we're very pleased the

 9   Governor decided to act on last year, in addition permitting

10   fuel efficiency measures such as engine and drive-train

11   performance to meet any new standards set by the state.

12             Since we were pessimistic about federal action at

13   the time we asked the state to use its unique authority to

14   move this effort forward.  And our hope was that if we

15   succeeded other states would follow and this would

16   eventually lead to the federal government -- lead the

17   federal government to create a national standard quite

18   similar to California's.

19             With so many states having now adopted the

20   California regulations, and with Congress considering

21   similar measures, we are very pleased that our original

22   vision has been virtually borne out.  During this process we

23   pushed the Air Resources Board to consider all feasible

24   alternatives for greenhouse gas emissions reductions,

25   including the need to consider the use of plug-in electric

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               177

 1   hybrids as well as alternative fuels as key elements towards

 2   creating a cleaner automotive sector.

 3             At modest cost increases plug-in hybrids have the

 4   ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent or

 5   more and continue to represent the most important area for

 6   short- and medium-term improvements in emissions.

 7             And at this point I'd like address some previous

 8   comments by others.  Once again the auto industry comments

 9   demonstrate the same doom and gloom attitude they

10   demonstrated with seat belts as Patricia mentioned, with air

11   bags, catalytic converters, unleaded fuel.  They say, we

12   can't do it, it's not feasible, it'll cost too much, it

13   won't have any effect.

14             And today their pessimism has hit a new low with

15   their approach to climate change.  In essence their point is

16   that even if this regulation were extended globally it

17   wouldn't reduce global warming by any appreciable amount.

18   Well first I would like to point out that much of the

19   testimony and the comments by scientists and regulators that

20   they cited were taken very much out of context so these need

21   to be taken with a grain or perhaps a boulder of salt.  This

22   is true for Dr. Hansen's testimony as well as those by the

23   New York and Vermont regulators.

24             Second, the Alliance fails to mention anything

25   about climate tipping points.  As many climate scientists

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               178

 1   have noted, we are fast approaching a time when the planet

 2   could be tipped into runaway global warming.  It is unclear

 3   exactly when that is but many respected researchers believe

 4   we are already dangerously close to that point.  If we

 5   arrive there, there will be nothing that anyone can do to

 6   stop global warming.  Every nation, every state, every

 7   industry, every citizen will have to do their share if we

 8   are to avert a catastrophe.  Will that be enough?  Nobody

 9   has that answer.

10             But unlike the auto industry, which seems to be

11   arguing today that we should simply put our heads in the

12   sands and hope the problem goes away by itself, we need to

13   act now to protect our homes, our citizens, our jobs, our

14   wildlife and our planet.

15             And the fact is that the projected amount of

16   greenhouse gas emissions reductions from this regulation in

17   California alone, let alone worldwide, is staggering.  This

18   is not a trivial reduction.  As the global auto fleet

19   approaches one billion cars, if this regulation were carried

20   over to all new vehicles, global greenhouse gas emissions

21   would fall dramatically from the baseline, representing

22   significant progress in our fight to avert this problem.

23   Plus the Air Resources Board does have continuing authority

24   to tighten these regulations, which would allow us to dig

25   even deeper.

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               179

 1             Third, the Alliance has some explaining to do

 2   because in recent Congressional hearings they recognized

 3   that global warming is a problem.  And they acknowledged the

 4   need to do something about it and they said this needed to

 5   be done on a national basis.  How then can Mr. Clubok then

 6   claim today that there is nothing to be done.  The Alliance

 7   testimony this morning was not only deceptive but

 8   inconsistent with what they are telling our federal

 9   legislators in Washington DC.

10             EPA has a long history of successfully working in

11   conjunction with states, including California, to protect

12   our air and water quality.  Now is not an opportunity to

13   strangle states rights.  The EPA's job is to protect

14   citizens and future generations so that we are not left with

15   a Road Warrior future.  That might be good for Hollywood

16   films but it is not good for California citizens.  Thank

17   you.

18             PRESIDING OFFICER GRUNDLER:  Thank you Mr. Long.

19             Next I'd like to invite Tim Carmichael from the

20   Coalition for Clean Air.

21             MR. CARMICHAEL:  Good afternoon.  My name is Tim

22   Carmichael with the Coalition for Clean Air.  It is a

23   pleasure to be here.  A thank you to EPA for having this

24   hearing here in California and the one you had in DC and a

25   thank you to all the people that have today to testify in

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               180

 1   support of the waiver.

 2             I had the privilege of working with Assembly

 3   Member Pavley and many of the people in the room in getting

 4   this bill that led to the regulation that we're talking

 5   about today through the California Legislature, signed by

 6   the Governor.  And it was not something that was done

 7   lightly, it was not something that was done quickly.

 8             And in fact there was a lot of participation by

 9   some of the auto makers.  I think that is important to

10   recognize in spite of the opposition today.  Both through

11   the legislative process and the regulatory process there was

12   a lot of input, a lot of deference given to their

13   perspective in how best to craft this program.

14             I have been thinking a lot about where this goes

15   after today.  EPA as an agency, this group and your

16   colleagues, obviously have work to do relative to the

17   scientific and legal questions.  But I feel that the

18   testimony has been very good in clarifying those points and

19   giving you a lot to bolster our support of waiver approval.

20             But ultimately there is going to be a summary

21   report that is going to go to the administrator and in all

22   likelihood some version that is going to go to the White

23   House.  And I know that it becomes a public policy question,

24   some would say a political question as to what the

25   Administration does about this question.

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               181

 1             And I have been thinking about the headline or the

 2   abbreviated version of the report back that at some level

 3   they are only going to see the headline.  and to me what

 4   we've seen at the couple of hearings that you've had can be

 5   summarized in one line.  California climate waiver: auto

 6   alliance opposed, everyone else strongly supportive.  And I

 7   think that is really in a nutshell what you are going to get

 8   out of these two days and other correspondence that you're

 9   going to get.

10             And when I say, everyone else.  You've had not

11   just environmentalists that have been supportive of this for

12   many, many years.  You've had business leaders, including

13   two of the biggest companies in the country testify in

14   support.  You've had elected officials from this state,

15   you've had leaders from other states and you've had

16   scientists.  This is not a small subset of the population

17   that is way out in left field on this issue.

18             In fact, and I'll just share just a couple of

19   stats.  In California the Public Policy Institute based in

20   San Francisco is one of the most respected survey or polling

21   groups that we have and they regularly do surveys on

22   environmental questions.  And just a couple of things that I

23   think are insightful from their last year's survey.

24             They asked: How serious of a threat is global

25   warming to the economy and quality of life for California's

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               182

 1   future?  And 79 percent of Californians said, very serious

 2   or somewhat serious.  They also asked, excuse me.  Would you

 3   be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on new

 4   cars, trucks and SUVs, even if this was more costly for the

 5   purchase or lease of your next vehicle?  Two-thirds of all

 6   Californians said yes, even with the cost implications.

 7             And lastly I want to share that they asked,

 8   because this is such a significant policy question and has

 9   been now for five or six years in California.  They continue

10   to ask about it periodically.  And they asked specifically:

11   What about the state law that requires all auto makers to

12   further reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars

13   in California beginning in 2009?  Seventy-eight percent of

14   all Californians favor this law.

15             I encourage you to take back this message that you

16   had the automobile alliance in opposition and everyone else

17   strongly encouraging the EPA to grant this waiver.  And I

18   think that is the most important communication that can go

19   up the chain.  Thank you very much.

20             PRESIDING OFFICER GRUNDLER:  Thank you for your

21   testimony.

22             Next, from the Natural Resources Defense Counsel,

23   Roland Hwang.  Welcome.

24             MR. HWANG:  Good afternoon, thank you.  Thank you

25   for the opportunity to testify today in favor of

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               183

 1   California's waiver request for it's motor vehicle emission

 2   control program under Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act

 3   amendments.  I am the vehicles policy director for the

 4   Natural Resources Defense Counsel based here in San

 5   Francisco.  I represent NRDC and its 1.2 million members and

 6   activists in support of California's efforts to set

 7   standards for global warming pollution from new cars and

 8   light trucks.

 9             Mr. David Doniger, policy director and senior

10   attorney at the NRDC's Climate Center in Washington, DC

11   previously testified last week on May 22 at the waiver

12   hearing in Washington.  He primarily addressed the legal

13   standards that govern EPA's review of California's waiver

14   request under Section 209(b).  Our legal conclusion is

15   clear, and this is also supported by our technical analysis

16   to which I'll add more detail today.  EPA has only one

17   choice but to grant California it's waiver request.  It must

18   do so without delay.  Mr. Doniger spoke about that last

19   week.  He also informed EPA in order to prevent further

20   delay NRDC on May 21 joined with the Environmental Defense,

21   a colleague of mine is sitting here, and the Sierra Club in

22   notifying the agency of our intent to join with California

23   to legally compel EPA to act if it does not issue the waiver

24   by this fall.

25             In my testimony today I will supplement

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               184

 1   Mr. Doniger's previous testimony by presenting our technical

 2   conclusions that support our legal conclusion.  It is our

 3   belief that the program is technically feasible and cost-

 4   effective and there is sufficient lead time.  Furthermore,

 5   events since the board's adoption in September 2004 serve to

 6   strongly reinforce this conclusion.  These events include

 7   persistently higher fuel prices, a rapid consumer shift away

 8   from truck-based SUVs, continued development of clean car

 9   technologies and stringent new CO2 vehicle standards that

10   are likely to be adopted in Europe.  For these reasons we

11   find there is no basis to deny the waiver under Section

12   209(b)(1)(C) as inconsistent with Section 202(a).

13             I'd like to start off my technical, the evidence

14   I'd like to present to EPA with a survey of previous cost

15   estimates or regulations on vehicle standards.

16             The auto makers claimed in 2004, back at the Air

17   Resources Board hearing, that the cost of compliance in 2016

18   would be $3,000, ARB staff estimated $1,000.  I think it is

19   important when you look at these different cost estimates to

20   review the past track record, if you will, of the various

21   organizations involved in making these estimates.

22             In fact the difference in the cost estimates,

23   based upon my survey of previous work including EPA's work

24   on cost of compliance predictions versus actual for vehicle

25   standards, my conclusion is that the $3,000 versus $1,000

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               185

 1   estimates are consistent in actuality with what has happened

 2   in the past where that estimate in terms of the industry,

 3   auto industry estimates are two to ten times higher.

 4             Earlier it was discussed about the Zero Emission

 5   Vehicle program and some of the cost estimates there.  I do

 6   not believe that is a very good analogy for this program.

 7   The 1493 program, the California Greenhouse Gas Program, is

 8   about improvements to gasoline vehicle technology, it does

 9   not assume any kind of so-called advanced technologies.

10             As Ms. Monahan spoke of earlier, there is no need

11   to employ advanced vehicle technologies to reach the

12   standard that ARB has set for the 1493 program.  This

13   program in fact looks more like the Low Emission Vehicle

14   Program which the Air Resources Board adopted in 1990

15   because it is in actuality improvements, incremental

16   improvements to gasoline vehicle technologies.

17             And when you look at the past history of auto

18   maker estimates of what those costs look like versus the

19   actual cost the record has shown that the industry estimated

20   the cost of the LEV program compliance in 1994, they

21   estimated the cost to be almost $800.  The actual cost

22   turned out to be about $80, so in fact the auto industry

23   over-estimated the cost of compliance for the Low Emission

24   Vehicle Program by about a factor of ten.  This should come

25   as no surprise to folks who have worked in this field for

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               186

 1   awhile.

 2             The second point I would like to make is that we

 3   believe that the ARB staff assessment of the technology was

 4   very sound, and we testified to that in front of the Air

 5   Resources Board's Board Members back in 2004.  And since

 6   2004 the world has changed, and the conditions that have

 7   changed have led to us to reinforce our opinion that in fact

 8   the technological feasibility cost-effectiveness and the

 9   lead time has all more been more than adequately

10   demonstrated by the Air Resources Board to comply with the

11   waiver criteria.

12             There are at least four factors which have led us

13   to conclude that since 2004 we have more evidence to believe

14   that this is going to be, this program will be technically

15   feasible, cost-effective and adequate lead time.  The first

16   is the higher fuel prices since 2004.  ARB used $1.74, today

17   we can see the prices around the country are about $3.20 a

18   gallon.  Even the Department of Energy's Energy Information

19   Administration concurs that there has been a long-term

20   structural shift in the oil price markets and their

21   forecasts have also gone up.  So clearly at $1.74 the

22   program was cost-effective.  At $3.20 nationwide and $3.50

23   here in California the program is even more cost-effective.

24             The second reason why we believe the program is

25   even more cost-effective and the lead time is adequate is

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               187

 1   that the higher fuel prices and other shifts in consumer

 2   demand has led to a very rapid shift away from truck-based

 3   SUVs.  There has been a lot written about the rapid shift to

 4   so-called crossover vehicles and also to small cars,

 5   subcompact cars even.  All of these trends point to that the

 6   ability for the auto companies to meet the standards are in

 7   fact eased by this market shift to these crossover vehicles

 8   and smaller cars.

 9             The third reason is there has been quite a bit

10   since 2004, a lot of developments in clean car technologies.

11   ARB staff's presentation today noted that there are many of

12   these technologies that are emerging or have been announced

13   in the marketplace.  And these include variable valve

14   timing, cylinder deactivation, camless valve actuation, six

15   and seven speed transmissions, continuously variable

16   transmissions, gasoline direct injection engines with and

17   without turbocharging, electric power steering, homogenous

18   charge compression engines and advanced diesel engines.

19             Since 2004 these technologies have either been

20   introduced or auto makers -- introduced by auto makers and

21   suppliers or there have been major announcements about their

22   introductions over the next several years.  For example, GM

23   has stated that one in six, or about 17 percent of its

24   engines, will be gasoline direct injection by 2010.  Another

25   example of how fast evolving this technology is, late last

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               188

 1   year Valeio, a French auto supplier, said that it expected

 2   to commercialize camless valve actuation technology by 2010

 3   or 2011.  And the final example would be GM, Ford, Nissan

 4   and i believe others all have announced their intentions to

 5   produce in the next several years HCCI engines.

 6             The final development since 2004, which reinforced

 7   the technical assessment by the Air Resources Board, is that

 8   the European Union has announced, and it looks like they are

 9   very close to finalizing an agreement for a mandatory CO2

10   standard for their automobile vehicle fleet.  That standard

11   will likely be about 130 grams per kilometer by 2012.

12   Though direct comparisons are difficult due to differences

13   in vehicle fleet size and drive cycles, the 2012 standard is

14   clearly more stringent that California's 2016 standard in

15   terms of the auto company's compliance job.

16             To meet he standard auto makers will need to

17   develop and commercialize for the European market many of

18   the same technologies needed for the California program.

19   Several years prior to when they will be needed for the

20   California Clean Car state -- This will ensure the success

21   of the technologies and also create larger economies of

22   scale.

23             In sum my colleague, David Doniger, has already

24   testified last week that our legal conclusion is clear.  EPA

25   has but one choice, that is to grant California's waiver

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               189

 1   without delay.  This supplemental comments demonstrate there

 2   is no technical basis to deny the waiver under Section 209

 3   as inconsistent with section 202(a).  NRDC also intends to

 4   file written comments by June 15 to supplement our oral

 5   comments.  We appreciate this opportunity to present our

 6   perspective, thank you.

 7             PRESIDING OFFICER GRUNDLER:  Thank you, Mr. Hwang.

 8             Environmental Defense.

 9             MR. WALKER:  Good afternoon members of the panel.

10   It is a privilege to be here and we thank you for holding

11   this hearing.  I am Derek Walker, Deputy Director of state

12   Climate Initiatives for Environmental Defense.  As most of

13   you know we are a national nonprofit, non-partisan and

14   science-based environmental organization and we have offices

15   here in California in Oakland, Los Angeles and Sacramento.

16   I respectfully offer my comments today on behalf of not only

17   our numerous members in California who are deeply concerned

18   about global warming but our hundreds of thousands of

19   members across the country.

20             On December 21, 2005 the Air Resources Board

21   requested this waiver for vehicles beginning with the 2009

22   model year.  Californians entitled to such a waiver under

23   Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act, which was enacted in

24   1967 in recognition of this state's leadership in motor

25   vehicle emissions control regulations.

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               190

 1             209(b) compels the Administrator of EPA to grant

 2   California's request for a waiver unless he or she finds

 3   that one of the stated exceptions applies.  The legislative

 4   history of Section 209, EPA's prior decisions on waiver

 5   requests and the court review of these decisions, clearly

 6   establish that EPA must be highly deferential to California

 7   and that grounds for denial are very tightly constrained by

 8   these statutory factors.  As the DC Circuit Court found in

 9   1979:

10                  "Congress has decided to grant

11             California the broadest possible

12             discretion in adopting and enforcing

13             standards for the control of emissions

14             from new motor vehicles."

15             EPA's past decisions have been consistent with

16   this narrow scope of review, recognizing the tremendous

17   benefit that our country has derived from California's

18   expertise and efforts.  It was 32 years ago that EPA

19   administrator Russell Train explained that Congress

20   disallowed EPA from second-guessing California's policy

21   judgement.  Administrator Train said:

22                  "Congress meant to ensure by the

23             language it adopted that the Federal

24             government would not second-guess the

25             wisdom of state policy here."

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               191

 1             EPA has similarly recognized that the phrase

 2   compelling and extraordinary conditions refers to general

 3   and fundamental circumstances including geography, climate

 4   and California's exceptional motor vehicle population, not,

 5   quote, "to levels of pollution directly."  Consequently the

 6   Agency has concluded that the preemption waiver extends not

 7   only to regulations directed at Southern California's

 8   notorious ozone problem but to California's particulate

 9   control problem as well.

10             In its decisions on recent waiver requests, any

11   suggestion that California did not need its own motor

12   vehicle pollution control program have been readily

13   dismissed.  In action on California's preemption waiver

14   request for the LEV II program, for example, EPA stated,

15   quote, that:

16                  "CARB has continually demonstrated

17             the existence of compelling and

18             extraordinary conditions justifying the

19             need for its own motor vehicle pollution

20             control program.  No information has

21             been submitted to demonstrate that

22             California no longer has a compelling

23             and extraordinary need for its own

24             program."

25             California unquestionably continues to face the

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               192

 1   compelling and extraordinary conditions in its geography,

 2   climatic conditions, population and motor vehicle use.  Just

 3   as EPA had no basis for denying waivers that allowed

 4   California to extend the scope of its programs to include

 5   particulate matter, the Agency similarly has no basis for

 6   refusing to allow California to broaden its programs to

 7   include greenhouse gases, given the serious health and

 8   welfare threats they are now known to pose to California's

 9   resources and to her citizens.

10             California is home to one in seven Americans and

11   is the most populous state in our union.  The state's

12   population is growing rapidly and will increase by 60

13   percent by 2050.  Furthermore, in 2005 we had 32.5 million

14   registered vehicles, exceeding the number registered in any

15   other state by a margin of almost two to one.

16             As in 1967 when Congress enacted the waiver

17   protections for California, Californians also continue to

18   suffer from some of the worst air quality in our country,

19   and we heard some compelling testimony on that earlier.

20   Thirty-eight of California's 58 counties are currently

21   designated as non-attainment for the federal eight-hour

22   ozone standard.

23             California's circumstances are also exceptional in

24   the expertise and resources that our state devotes to air

25   quality management.  ARB's 2004 and 2005 budget was $130

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               193

 1   million, with state and local agencies cumulatively pitching

 2   in an addition $550 million on air quality management

 3   activities.  To put that into context, EPA's air program is

 4   only about $660 million -- I say only -- about $660 million.

 5   But compared to California I think that is a particularly

 6   relevant point.

 7             Beyond these compelling and extraordinary

 8   demographic conditions, California is highly vulnerable t

 9   climate change.  Our economy relies heavily on agriculture.

10   The coasts are profoundly susceptible to sea level rise and

11   the state's water resources are critically vulnerable.

12   California, as we heard in the last panel, is extremely

13   prone to wildfires, the incidence of which is expected to

14   increase as climate change progress.

15             Moreover the challenge of reducing ozone levels in

16   California, both in its cities and in agricultural areas, is

17   expected to become harder as the climate crisis grows.  As

18   California laid out in the support document accompanying its

19   initial waiver request, quote:

20                  "California's high ozone levels --

21             clearly a condition that Congress

22             considered -- will be exacerbated by

23             higher temperatures from global

24             warming."

25   Thus, in addition to al the other compelling and

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               194

 1   extraordinary conditions California is already facing this

 2   waiver request is intimately linked to the same, the very

 3   same air pollution problems that Californians were facing in

 4   the 1960s when Congress first considered and enacted this

 5   preemption waiver.

 6             For our globe as a whole the expectation that

 7   surface temperatures will increase as climate change

 8   progresses is firmly established.  California in particular

 9   is expected to experience warmer temperatures as climate

10   change progresses in the coming decades.

11             Recently a regional scale climate model was used

12   to downscale global climate simulations in order to examine

13   projections for climate variables likely to affect air

14   quality in the United states through the mid part of this

15   century.  Temperatures, solar radiation, rainfall, the

16   stagnation of pressure systems and boundary layer

17   ventilation were examined.

18             And the conclusion was reached that during the

19   fall all indicators consistently suggest increased ozone

20   concentrations will occur in the western part of the United

21   States.  The indicators of higher ozone pollution include

22   warmer temperatures, increased downward solar radiation,

23   lower amounts of rainfall, more frequent stagnation episodes

24   and reduced ventilation.  Summer temperatures are also

25   projected to increase.

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               195

 1             Higher temperatures are robustly linked to higher

 2   ozone concentrations based on both observations and on

 3   theoretical understandings of atmospheric chemistry.  Recent

 4   global modeling studies that have investigated the impact of

 5   future climate change on surface level ozone concentrations

 6   concur in a basic conclusion that was stated by Murazaki and

 7   Hess in 2006, quote:

 8                  "In general the impact of climate

 9             change alone -- on future ozone levels

10             will be to decrease surface ozone in

11             remote regions but to increase it in

12             polluted regions."

13   In urban areas and in others with high levels of nitrogen

14   oxides ozone is expected to increase with a combination of

15   increased temperatures and an increase in water vapor.

16              Of course, no one expects climate change will

17   occur without contemporaneous changes in the emissions of

18   conventional air pollutants that directly impact local and

19   regional air quality  Without further intervention some of

20   these changes and emissions will themselves be driven by

21   climate change.  For example, the increased emissions of

22   NO2, carbon monoxide and fine particulate matter from the

23   wildfires we've discussed, and increased emissions of

24   volatile organic compounds from anthropogenic sources like

25   fuel and solvent evaporation that are highly responsive to

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               196

 1   temperature.

 2             Other emissions changes could occur due to

 3   population and economic growth, regardless of what happens

 4   to the earth's climate.  In particular these drivers are

 5   expected to dramatically increase emissions in Asia.

 6   global atmospheric chemistry and transport studies that have

 7   examined the combined effects of climate change and future

 8   emissions concur in the expectation that without further

 9   regulatory intervention ozone concentrations in the Northern

10   Hemisphere will increase.  Under some scenarios the

11   projected increases in ozone concentrations are extremely

12   dramatic.

13             Focusing on California, Aw and Kleeman in 2003

14   applied a state-of-the-art atmospheric chemistry and

15   transport model to the South Coast Air Basin to examine the

16   influence of changes in temperature on air quality.  After

17   evaluating the model they examined how predicted ozone

18   concentrations would change if ambient temperatures were

19   increased with no other changes introduced.  Peak ozone

20   concentrations were predicted to rise substantially as

21   temperatures increased.

22             And Steiner recently, that's 2006, last year,

23   recently applied EPA's Community Multiscale Air Quality, the

24   CMAQ model, to examine the effect of climate change on the

25   severity of a five-day pollution episode in Central

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               197

 1   California.  Their climate sensitivity cases were based on a

 2   regional climate study that predicted temperature increases

 3   ranging from one degree Celsius at the coast to about four

 4   degrees Celsius in the Sierra Nevada.  With emissions and

 5   inflow boundary conditions unchanged form the historical

 6   base case that they used, the expected meteorological

 7   changes caused by global warming were predicted to

 8   significantly increase ozone in the San Francisco Bay Area.

 9   They conclude, quote:

10                  "In the future, the San Francisco

11             bay area may be particularly sensitive

12             to climate change despite strong

13             reductions inn anthropogenic emissions.

14             In this region, the severity and

15             frequency of ozone episodes may

16             increase, causing more annual ozone

17             exceedences."

18             In summary, the circumstances that justified

19   Congress' adoption of the preemption waiver 30 years ago

20   still exist today.  Climate change poses a profound threat

21   to our state, with its reliance on agriculture, tourism and

22   precariously balanced water resources.  Climate change is

23   also expected to exacerbate the same smog problem that

24   California faced in the '60s, making it unmistakably clear

25   that California continues to need its own motor vehicle

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               198

 1   programs to address compelling and extraordinary conditions.

 2             To comment on the earlier testimony of the

 3   automobile manufacturers, it is extremely disingenuous and

 4   dishonest to stand before this panel today and to claim that

 5   the impacts of AB 1493 will not be measurable either in the

 6   United States or around our world.  The truth of the matter,

 7   and the reason why those regulators and scientists nodded

 8   their heads and said that they had not studied the impacts

 9   of this bill are that climate change science and modeling

10   cannot accurately account for changes that are the result of

11   single policy measures that do not impact, that impact less

12   than ten percent of global emissions.

13             This bill is extremely significant.  But again,

14   the reason why those scientists and those regulators said

15   that nothing had been studied on this bill -- And the reason

16   why Dr. Hansen said he refused to waste computer time is

17   because Dr. Hansen would rather focus on the limitations of

18   current global warming science and modeling.

19             What Dr. Hansen does say, and I'm sure now wishes

20   he were here to say today, is that this bill is well within

21   the IPCC's low emissions scenario, which is intending to --

22   with a target of keeping the global increase in temperature

23   to within one degree Celsius in the next century.

24   Dr. Hansen also would say and has said that any increase in

25   carbon dioxide, increases radiative forcing, which also

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               199

 1   increases warming.  That is a basic scientific fact.

 2             Making this change in California and in the 11

 3   other states that have passed this automobile emissions bill

 4   will make a tremendous impact in carbon dioxide.  As most of

 5   you know, cars and trucks represent a huge portion of

 6   California's emissions pie; 41 percent of California's

 7   emissions come from cars and trucks.  If California were a

 8   country it would be the eighth largest emitter of CO2.  And

 9   with the two states that are now considering this bill that

10   would take it up t 15.  There would be almost one-third or

11   over one-third of the US auto market would be covered by

12   this bill.

13             So California has been a leader in the past.

14   California's actions and expertise have generated action

15   both at the national and international stage.  And again on

16   behalf of hundreds of thousands of members of Environmental

17   Defense I and we strongly encourage you to, without further

18   delay, approve this waiver.  Thank you.

19             PRESIDING OFFICER GRUNDLER:  Thank you very much,

20   Mr. Walker.

21             Mr. Brune from Rainforest Action Network, the

22   floor is yours.

23             MR. BRUNE:  Good afternoon.  Michael Brune from

24   Rainforest Action Network.  Thank you all for the

25   opportunity to speak today.  I admire your stamina.

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               200

 1             I come here with a very straightforward message.

 2   I hope that the EPA will grant this waiver and will do so

 3   without any further delay.

 4             One of the challenges of speaking later in the

 5   afternoon is that it is awfully difficult to offer much that

 6   is new so I'll just make three very quick points.

 7             The first is that one of the benefits of speaking

 8   later in the afternoon is that while listening to testimony

 9   I have had the opportunity to do a little bit of research.

10   I am happy to report that the wireless system here in this

11   office is very fast and very reliable.

12             Almost every news article that I read today

13   predicts that the EPA and the Bush Administration will

14   eventually side with the auto industry and the oil industry

15   and will deny the waiver.  I can only hope that this isn't

16   true.  I can only hope that the EPA will not side with the

17   auto industry and will not rule against everybody else.  I

18   picked up over 600 articles on this hearing and on the

19   hearing last week.  The world is watching and the stakes are

20   absolutely enormous.

21             The EPA has never turned down a waiver request

22   from the state of California and I really hope that you

23   don't start now.  We have heard powerful testimony today

24   about the impacts of climate change on human health,

25   California's snowpack, the state economy, ozone levels, the

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               201

 1   federal economy and so on.

 2             My second point is to highlight the impacts of

 3   climate change on forests.  The prestigious journal Nature

 4   released a comprehensive study about a year ago documenting

 5   the impact of climate change on biodiversity around the

 6   world.  Up to 34 percent of all species around the world

 7   would be threatened with extinction.  Threatened with

 8   extinction due to climate change, even at conservative

 9   estimates, by 2050.  The study also showed that up to 85

10   percent, 85 percent of all species in the Amazon, will be

11   threatened with extinction by 2050 using conservative

12   estimates of climate change.

13             Again, scientists are documenting that species are

14   migrating towards higher altitudes, migrating towards

15   northern latitudes.  We're seeing the deepest, the warming

16   of the deepest oceans.  All of this is due to a warming of

17   about one degree so far.  Dr. Hansen tells us that there is

18   another degree of warming already baked into the atmosphere.

19   The time to act is now.

20             My final point is actually just to make a personal

21   request.  Like a lot of people who have spoken here today I

22   am also a parent.  My daughter is three years old, her name

23   is Olivia.  By the time she graduates high school scientists

24   predict that we may lose the glaciers at Glacier Mountain

25   National Park, we'll lose the snows of Kilimanjaro, and up

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               202

 1   to 70 percent of coral reefs will be destroyed because of

 2   climate change.  This happens before my daughter graduates

 3   high school.

 4             By the time my daughter is 30 up to 500 million

 5   people throughout Asia and Africa will face severe and life-

 6   threatening water shortages.  Again, just because of climate

 7   change.  And by the time my daughter is in her mid-40s,

 8   again, up to 87 percent of all species in the Amazon will be

 9   threatened with extinction because of climate change.

10             How much more evidence do we need to take strong

11   action?  How much more evidence do we really need to take

12   strong action?  Please, I urge the EPA not to stand on the

13   wrong side of history, not to stand with the auto industry

14   and the oil industries.  Please grant this waiver.  Momentum

15   is building to fight climate change and here in California,

16   as you can sense, our determination is very strong.  Please,

17   don't stand in our way.  Please grant this waiver as soon as

18   possible.  Thank you.

19             PRESIDING OFFICER GRUNDLER:  Thank you very much,

20   Mr. Brune.  Any questions from the panel?  Michael.

21             PANELIST HOROWITZ:  A quick question for

22   Mr. Walker.  Your testimony indicates you believe that

23   climate change will exacerbate the smog problem in

24   California.  The earlier testimony from the auto industry

25   indicates that the standards might in fact increase smog-

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               203

 1   causing emissions.  Do you have any comment on that?

 2             MR. WALKER:  My testimony actually says that smog

 3   will increase and decrease variably depending on the

 4   concentration of population and other factors in different

 5   areas.

 6             PANELIST HOROWITZ:  But you said that in areas

 7   where there was already a severe smog problem that it could

 8   exacerbate the smog problem; is that right?

 9             MR. WALKER:  Right.  I mean as temperature

10   increases to that degree it can trap more of the

11   particulates and cause a greater problem.  But again that

12   varies depending on population.

13             PANELIST HOROWITZ:  And do you have any comment on

14   the Alliance's testimony earlier that the standards will

15   increase the emissions of smog-producing pollutants?

16             MR. WALKER:  I think that that -- I would question

17   their calculation in that.  I think that they estimated that

18   by 2030 there would be approximately the equivalent of

19   approximately 1.9 million additional cars on the road.  It

20   is pretty clear based on the studies that have been done

21   surrounding this bill that the reduction in net automobiles

22   reduced -- net automobiles removed from the road would be

23   almost 100 million per year.  So I think that their, I think

24   that their estimates are incredibly self-serving, as with

25   the other statements that they made, eliminating about 95

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               204

 1   percent of the facts available on any particular question

 2   considered.

 3             PANELIST HOROWITZ:  Thank you.

 4             PRESIDING OFFICER GRUNDLER:  Thank you all for

 5   your testimony.

 6             I'd like to invite up Panel number 9, the American

 7   Lung Association of California, the California Nurses

 8   Association and Dr. Kelter.  Ms. Holmes, would you like to

 9   begin?

10             MS. HOLMES-GEN:  Sure.  My name is Bonnie Holmes-

11   Gen and I am Assistant Vice President for Government

12   Relations with the American Lung Association of California

13   and I am very pleased to be here today.  We are pleased that

14   you are here in California to hear from us.  And we are

15   especially pleased to be part of such a prestigious group of

16   public officials, of community and business leaders, of

17   health and medical organizations and representatives and

18   scientists.  We think this is a wonderful showing of support

19   from all of our constituencies here in California for this

20   important law.

21             And we are here today to urge the federal

22   Environmental Protection Agency to grant the waiver to

23   California to implement our 2002 Clean Cars Law.  As a

24   public health organization we believe the California Clean

25   Cars Law is essential to promote improved air quality and

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               205

 1   public health in California and to promote air quality and

 2   public health in the 11 other states that have adopted this

 3   important program.  Of course in addition to be an essential

 4   element of state and national efforts to slow global

 5   warming.

 6             The need for this waiver is clear and compelling

 7   and EPA has a clear obligation to grant the waiver. We are

 8   urging today that the federal EPA moves out of the way and

 9   allows California to move ahead and implement this important

10   law.  AB 1493 will reduce emissions from the largest source

11   of greenhouse gases in California.  As you have heard

12   several times over, passenger vehicles and light duty trucks

13   are responsible for a huge percentage of California's global

14   warming emissions, 41 percent.

15             And this legislation and our regulation provides a

16   feasible, cost-effective pathway to substantially reduce

17   emissions from these sources with technologies that are

18   proven and readily available.  Without AB 1493 vehicle

19   greenhouse gas emissions would just continue to rise as more

20   cars are on the road traveling longer distances.

21             Our state has been at the forefront of clean car

22   technologies for several decades and the innovations

23   developed in California have dramatically reduced smog and

24   benefitted the rest of the country.  The AB 1493

25   requirements to produce cars with lower levels of greenhouse

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               206

 1   gas emissions continue this important history of leadership.

 2   And will not only help to slow the pace of global warming,

 3   but will also encourage the use of advanced technology

 4   vehicles including hybrid electric and plug-ins and natural

 5   gas and other technologies that have extremely low emissions

 6   of criteria pollutants.

 7             Since we are a public health organization I want

 8   to spend most of my time here today talking about our

 9   concerns about public health and how AB 1493 and the Clean

10   Car, the Clean Car regulation will help to address the

11   public health problems that we are experiencing here in

12   California.  The reductions in greenhouse gases will result

13   in important air quality and public health benefits.  It is

14   clear that greenhouse gas emissions -- It is clear that if

15   California does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions it will

16   be much more difficult for our state to achieve state and

17   federal clean air standards.

18             A California state-sponsored analysis of public

19   health impacts of global warming found that higher

20   temperatures could dramatically increase the number of days

21   favorable to ozone formation.  In this state study under a

22   medium-high emission scenario the number of days conducive

23   to ozone formation were found to potentially increase by 75

24   percent in Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley by the end

25   of this century.  And these two areas, of course, have some

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               207

 1   of the worst, are experiencing some of the worst smog, worst

 2   air quality in the country and are listed in our American

 3   Lung Association State of the Air Report as some of the top

 4   polluted areas in the country.  And of course any increased

 5   pollution would cause severe public health consequences.

 6             California already is experiencing thousands of

 7   premature deaths and thousands of hospitalizations every

 8   year from air pollution and California has some of the

 9   highest asthma rates in the country.  And studies are even

10   showing that children growing up in our more polluted areas

11   have abnormal lung development.

12             All the many public health impacts of air

13   pollution add up to billions of dollars a year in costs,

14   medical costs and the cost of premature deaths.  And in fact

15   when an estimate from our State Air Resources Board

16   estimates over $50 billion a year in health costs related to

17   air pollution.  And that includes the cost of premature

18   deaths.

19             The longer we delay, the more emissions we are

20   spewing into the air, the more health impacts that we are

21   experiencing.  Study after study confirms that air pollution

22   has a direct impact on respiratory health.  I mentioned the

23   asthma attacks, consider also premature deaths,

24   hospitalizations.  Pollution also contributes to bronchitis,

25   chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, lung

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               208

 1   cancer and other lung and heart illnesses.  And children and

 2   the elderly are particularly vulnerable, with recent

 3   research indicating that exposure to heavy pollution may not

 4   only aggravate asthma or cause more severe asthma episodes

 5   but is also linked to the onset of new cases of asthma.

 6             In addition to greenhouse gases resulting in the

 7   potential for greater formation of ozone increased global

 8   warming gases in the atmosphere, of course as has been

 9   mentioned earlier, will result in increased emissions of

10   pollutants ranging from smog precursors to particulate

11   emissions from many different sources.  So we have a very

12   serious concern about the public health impacts that are

13   linked to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming from

14   motor vehicle and other sources.

15             The longer we delay, again, the more emissions we

16   spew.  It is critical that California reduce its greenhouse

17   gas emissions through the implementation of AB 1493.

18   California has, again, led the way for the nation by

19   adopting this important greenhouse gas regulation and

20   California clearly has the authority to adopt these

21   standards.  There are clear and compelling reasons for

22   California to move forward and the American Lung Association

23   urges you to grant this waiver without delay.  Thank you for

24   time to speak with you today.

25             PRESIDING OFFICER GRUNDLER:  Thank you,

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               209

 1   Ms. Holmes.

 2             Ms. Donna Fox from the California Nurses

 3   Association, thank you for being here.

 4             MS. DORSEY FOX:  Thank you for the opportunity to

 5   be here.  I am a registered nurse and I am representing

 6   75,000 registered nurses of the California Nurses

 7   Association and we are asking you to support the waiver.  We

 8   are here to say that it is essential to improve air quality

 9   and the public's health in California.

10             Under the Clean Air Act California has a

11   compelling rationale to merit a waiver.  Individual states

12   or tribes may have stronger air pollution laws but they may

13   not have weaker pollution limits than those set by the EPA.

14   This is according to your website.

15             The California Air Resources Board reports that

16   more than 95 percent of Californians live in areas with

17   unhealthy air.  Passenger vehicles and light duty trucks are

18   responsible for approximately 40 percent of California's

19   total global warming emissions.

20             Every day the registered nurses of California

21   Nurses Association treat patients who suffer from lung

22   disease, heart disease and premature deaths.  Many of these

23   patients are sick and they're getting sicker from the auto

24   emissions and the resultant ozone and particulate pollution.

25   The hardest hit, as you have head before, are the young and

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               210

 1   the elderly and those individuals who are already

 2   compromised with lung disease or heart disease.  The asthma

 3   rates are skyrocketing.  This burden of disease is

 4   preventable.  That's why we're here today.  Californians of

 5   all ages are suffering.

 6             What does this mean?  It means a loss of

 7   productivity, it means people having disability because they

 8   can't function in the work place.  It means they can't

 9   participate in raising their families.  It means children

10   can't play like children normally do.  This means a decline

11   in the quality of life for Californians of all ages.

12             The technology to substantially reduce emissions

13   is available.  It is a public health imperative for

14   Californians that you grant this waiver.  The registered

15   nurses of the California Nurses Association urge you to put

16   the public's health first.  Thank you for your attention to

17   this urgent, public health problem.

18             PRESIDING OFFICER GRUNDLER:  Thank you very much.

19             Dr. Kelter, welcome.

20             DR. KELTER:  Thank you very much.  I thank you for

21   the opportunity to be here.  I have actually been up there a

22   couple of times in my career and I know what you're going

23   through.  My keester is getting sore just thinking about it

24   so thank you for your perseverance.

25             My name is Alex Kelter.  I am a physician and an

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               211

 1   epidemiologist.  I recently retired from the California

 2   Department of Health Services after 24 years of serving

 3   California's taxpayers.  Prior to that I worked at the

 4   Arizona Department of Health Service and the Centers for

 5   Disease Control.  I have spent fully half of my career in

 6   the area of environmental epidemiology and toxic substances,

 7   including working on both criteria and toxic air

 8   contaminants in Arizona and here in California.

 9             Parenthetically, I've spent the other half of my

10   career in injury prevention so I am very used to dealing

11   with the attitudes and practices of the automobile industry.

12   More on that later.

13             I also hope to be able to say something that

14   actually other people haven't said and make this late

15   afternoon worthwhile for you.  And I am here today as a

16   volunteer with the American Lung Association.

17             You have already heard about AB 1493.  I'm going

18   to try not to repeat all that.  But I want to emphasize the

19   point that by not approving this waiver you are denying

20   California the right to protect the public health as is

21   guaranteed by the Constitution, protecting health and

22   welfare is assigned to the states.  And as assured by the

23   Clean Air Act itself, when it permits states to adopt more

24   protective standards.

25             You have already heard why passing this law was

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               212

 1   critical for California.  you have already heard why

 2   California clearly has the compelling and extraordinary

 3   circumstances that are needed to merit this waiver.  You

 4   have already heard that motor vehicles continue to be a

 5   major source of emissions in California and that 40 percent

 6   of our greenhouse gas emissions come from automobiles.  you

 7   have already heard that AB 1493 will provide a feasible and

 8   cost-effective way to reduce emissions with technologies

 9   that are proven and readily available today.

10             We have known for decades what the health effects

11   of air pollution are and how bad they can affect people with

12   their respiratory health, their cardiovascular health,

13   perhaps even their mental health through disease processes

14   including asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, chronic lung

15   disease and lung cancer.

16             As with all forms of environmental degradation it

17   is the poor, the young and the old who are affected the

18   most.  And now we know that not only does air pollution

19   exacerbate these conditions, but in the case of asthma can

20   actually cause it.

21             Now for something new.  Furthermore, in this day

22   and age with the accelerating epidemic of childhood obesity

23   upon us, all of us physicians are urging our patients to get

24   out and be active in the community.  How can we do that in

25   good conscience when we know the air quality that we're

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               213

 1   sending people into?  It's almost abusive.

 2             We know that asthma is a disease that can rob a

 3   youngster of his childhood, make him afraid to be out in

 4   nature and to explore the world.  We know that children

 5   today have the free range that is about ten percent of that

 6   we had when we were kids, and how essential it is for a

 7   child to develop and grow normally to be able to explore and

 8   touch and sense the world without restriction.

 9             Perhaps lung disease is the cruelest way to die.

10   The constant air hunger.  The wondering when your next

11   breath will be your last.  The feeling, the sense that

12   you're moving just enough air to stay alive and no more.

13             You have already heard the findings about the

14   environmental damage that will be done to California through

15   global warming so let me cut to the chase.  One of the

16   things I value most about my training as a physician is the

17   training I received in recognizing when it is time to act

18   and stop waiting for more data.

19             We know that ultimately we cannot continue the

20   trend of ever-accelerating VMT and still avoid worsening

21   climate change.  But we are a long way from implementing the

22   compact urban development and new land use policies that

23   will bring about a reduction in VMT.  So right now is the

24   time to act.  Right now we need to be able to reduce auto

25   emissions to the rock bottom levels achievable with existing

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               214

 1   technology to protect public health.

 2             It has been said that delay is the cruelest form

 3   of denial.  I strongly urge the EPA to grant this waiver

 4   now.  It is bad enough that the states have to go it alone.

 5   But for EPA to stand in the way is explicable and wrong for

 6   our children, wrong for our patients, wrong for all of

 7   California residents and the residents of the other 11

 8   states and the nation.  Please don't add more heat to the

 9   already accelerating skepticism of government that the

10   public has.

11             Unlike some other witnesses I am not worried about

12   the earth, I am just worried about the creatures that live

13   on it.  Thank you.

14             PRESIDING OFFICER GRUNDLER:  Thank you very much,

15   doctor.  Any questions for the panel?

16             Thank you for your time.

17             I'd like to invite the members of Panel 10 to come

18   forward.  Todd Campbell from Clean Energy, Laura Stuchinsky

19   from the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Mike Jackson,

20   Transportation Technology, TIAX, and Bob Roberts from the

21   California Ski Industry Association.  Thank you very much.

22             We'll begin with Mr. Campbell.  He is not here.

23             Ms. Stuchinsky, you may begin.

24             MS. ROSA:  My name is Kris Rosa, representing

25   Laura Stuchinsky and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group.  I

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               215

 1   am here to express the Leadership Group's support for the

 2   waiver.

 3             By way of background, the Silicon Valley

 4   Leadership Group is a public policy trade association

 5   founded 29 years ago by David Packard of Hewlett Packard.

 6   Today the Leadership Group has more than 210 members,

 7   including many of the nation's largest high tech and biotech

 8   firms.

 9             The Leadership Group's members have made reducing

10   the nation's greenhouse gas emissions and dependence on

11   imported fossil fuels a priority for their individual

12   organizations and the Leadership Group as a whole.  That is

13   why the organization was one of a handful of business groups

14   in the state that supported AB 32.  It is also why it

15   supports California's request for a rule waiver to implement

16   AB 1493.

17             We believe it is imperative that our nation take

18   swift and concerted action to avert the worst effects of

19   global warming.  We applaud the Governor and the Legislature

20   for exercising early and bold leadership on this issue.  It

21   is consistent with the state's long and proud history of

22   leadership on environmental policy.

23             Given that transportation is a major source of

24   greenhouse gases, 40 percent of all emissions in the state,

25   it makes sense for California to reduce emissions from this

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               216

 1   section to the maximum extent feasible.  Reducing tailpipe

 2   emissions is one strategy to achieve that goal.

 3             To achieve the deep cuts in emissions that are

 4   needed ultimately we will need to take comprehensive action

 5   on a national level.  But until that occurs it is essential

 6   that the federal government encourages states willing to

 7   take steps into the vanguard to do so.  To pilot programs

 8   and policies that, if effective, could be replicated across

 9   the country.

10                  California is the ideal place to road test

11   these ideas.  Our leadership and residents support such

12   action.  California's size, the numbers of cars purchased

13   and driven in this state gives us the heft to make

14   significant change.  A number of the world's experts from

15   the public and private sector are already doing the cutting-

16   edge research to make the necessary to happen in order to

17   implement the state's motor vehicle greenhouse gas reduction

18   regulation as well as other related state policies and

19   programs.

20             In summation, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group

21   urges the granting of the waiver.  This is not only in the

22   best interest of California but for the nation.  Thank you

23   for this opportunity.

24             PRESIDING OFFICER GRUNDLER:  Thank you, Ms. Rosa.

25             Mr. Jackson.

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               217

 1             MR. JACKSON:  Thank you.  My name is Mike Jackson.

 2   I am Senior Director of TIAX Corporation, LLC.  I head up

 3   our west coast office and I have focused my career for the

 4   last 30 years on transportation technology.  TIAX has been

 5   involved in a number of studies that touch upon many of the

 6   technical issues around reducing greenhouse gas emissions

 7   from light duty vehicles.

 8             So thank you for giving me the opportunity to

 9   provide comments and support of California's request for a

10   waiver of preemption under Clean Air Act Section 209(b).  In

11   my opinion, the California is needed to protect public

12   health in California.  This regulation will reduce damages

13   associated with climate change as well as criteria

14   pollutants and our over-reliance on petroleum-based fuels.

15             ARB's GHG emission standard coupled with Governor

16   Schwarzenegger's Executive Order S-01-07 requiring ARB to

17   establish a low carbon fuel standard, LCFS, will provide a

18   set of performance standards that will effectively control

19   overall emissions, be they greenhouse gas emissions or

20   criteria, and the economic impacts of our current fuel

21   vehicle system.

22             These performance standards will generate fuel and

23   vehicle innovations at reasonable costs and will provide

24   necessary emission reductions to protect public health.  For

25   these reasons I urge the US EPA to approve California's

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               218

 1   waiver request.

 2             I have included a Figure 1 in my testimony that

 3   illustrates that as the light duty vehicle fleet approaches

 4   it gets cleaner with the -- towards the cleanest

 5   technologies, such as Partial Zero Emission Vehicles or

 6   PZEVs, that the greenhouse gas emissions and the economic

 7   damages that are associated not only with those from

 8   criteria pollutants but greenhouse gas emissions and our

 9   over-reliance, that all these become very, very important.

10   They are equal in their contribution to the damages that

11   will occur in California.  We need these kind of performance

12   regulations that address these combined issues of reducing

13   criteria pollutants, greenhouse gas emissions and economic

14   consequences of relying solely on petroleum fuel for our

15   transportation system.

16             In recent congressional testimony each of the CEOs

17   of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler expressed the need for

18   the auto industry to develop alternative sources of

19   propulsion systems on diverse sources of energy.  GM's

20   Wagoner indicated the need to combine solutions to reduce

21   gasoline use and oil imports to also to reduce CO2

22   emissions.  Ford's CEO said that:

23                  "Our analysis shows that the most

24             cost-effective solutions to lower the

25             CO2 emissions from vehicles must be a

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               219

 1             combination of biofuels and vehicle

 2             technology advancements."

 3   An integrated systems approach considering the vehicle and

 4   the fuel is needed to provide combined benefits of reducing

 5   criteria emissions, GHG emissions, and reliance on petroleum

 6   based fuels.  Reformulating fuels in the early 1990s

 7   provided substantial advances in automotive emissions

 8   technology and was the first step to integrating the fuel-

 9   vehicle system for criteria pollutants.  The next step in

10   this process of controlling vehicle emissions is to optimize

11   the use of advanced engine technologies and low carbon fuels

12   to further reduce and possibly even remove the automobile

13   from the environmental equation.

14             ARB in their GHG emission standard and the

15   subsequent low carbon fuel standard are performance-based

16   standards from which the oil and auto industries can respond

17   with innovative, cost-effective solutions.  ARB's standard

18   incorporates not only advanced technologies but also the use

19   of alternative fuel technologies such as flexible fuel using

20   ethanol blends, compressed natural gas, plug-in hybrids.

21   Further, the regulation is written to not only include

22   tailpipe emissions but just as importantly the upstream

23   components of those emissions as well as vehicle air

24   conditioning impacts.

25             There are also direct upstream reductions of

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               220

 1   criteria pollutants, contrary to what the Alliance suggested

 2   this morning, since less gasoline fuel is being produced and

 3   distributed.  Estimates that we have made at TIAX indicates

 4   that in 2020 that reduction in terms of NOx plus ROC,

 5   although not substantial, is on the order of five tons per

 6   day.  It's not insignificant either.  And when you're

 7   talking about PM emissions it's on the order of one ton per

 8   day.

 9             These emissions, as you can imagine, it's hard to

10   figure out exactly where they are all coming from and what

11   the emission factors are for each step along the

12   distribution chain.  Throwing in some higher estimates they

13   could be as high as 15 tons per day or 6 tons -- 15 tons per

14   day of ROC plus NOx or 6 tons per day of PM.  This is in

15   stark contrast to Mr. Clubok's presentation of where he's

16   going to increase, the emissions would increase by about

17   that magnitude.

18             I have also shown in my testimony here a figure 2

19   which illustrates the benefits of alternative fuels in

20   meeting greenhouse gas standards compared to engine

21   efficiency measures alone.  And this figure is illustrating

22   how low carbon fuels can achieve very, very substantial

23   reductions in GHG emissions.  Ethanol fuels produce, for

24   example, from cellulosic resources or from sugar cane,

25   provide extremely low GHG impacts.  Other alternatives such

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               221

 1   as electric drive, including electric vehicles or plug-in

 2   hybrid electric vehicles, also provide significant

 3   reductions due to higher vehicle efficiencies, but also the

 4   fact that the electric generation mix is cleaner.

 5             The question is, will these technologies be

 6   accepted in the marketplace?  Recent announcements by all

 7   the OEMs suggest that they are serious about successfully

 8   bringing these vehicles to the marketplace.

 9             FFVs are already sold in California and the US.

10   Nationwide now six million are on our roads.  The CEOs from

11   GM, Ford and Chrysler have committed to provide 50 percent

12   of their productions as FFVs by 2012 in support of the

13   President's goal to reduce petroleum use by 20 percent by

14   2017.  Toyota has indicated they will be the first to market

15   with PHEVs.  GM has introduced the Chevrolet Bolt that they

16   expect to have in production by 2010.  DaimlerChrysler is

17   currently demonstrating PHEV architecture in their Sprinter

18   van.  All manufacturers continue to invest in developing

19   hydrogen fuel cell technologies.  Similarly, the energy

20   providers are also investing in new fuels that have lower

21   GHG impacts and can be effectively marketed using new or

22   existing infrastructure.

23             In conclusion, high oil prices and high oil and

24   gasoline prices, reliance on oil supplies from

25   geopolitically unstable regions, the growing consensus of

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               222

 1   the impacts of global warming, what you've heard today, and

 2   California's continuing struggles to meet ambient air

 3   quality standards in the South Coast and San Joaquin regions

 4   has mobilized our Legislature to require far-reaching

 5   regulations.

 6             Protecting public health has always been a high

 7   priority for Californians, as has protecting our economy,

 8   industries and jobs.  ARB's greenhouse gas emission

 9   regulation for light duty vehicles and the proposed low

10   carbon fuel standard will, in my opinion, provide much

11   needed reductions not only in the GHG emissions but in ozone

12   precursors as well as direct and indirect particulate

13   emissions.  This will be accomplished with advanced engine

14   technologies, with lower carbon fuels and with electric

15   drive technologies with promises of zero tailpipe emissions.

16   All of these technologies will be needed in California to

17   protect our citizens.  Thank you.

18             PRESIDING OFFICER GRUNDLER:  Thank you,

19   Mr. Jackson.  You indicated some analyses you have done

20   estimating the air quality impacts of these standards.  Are

21   those part of your written testimony that you'll be

22   submitting?

23             MR. JACKSON:  I can do that.  It wasn't part of

24   the written testimony.

25             PRESIDING OFFICER GRUNDLER:  That would be useful

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               223

 1   to us.

 2             MR. JACKSON:  And to be clear, it's the estimate

 3   of the upstream emission criteria pollutants?

 4             PRESIDING OFFICER GRUNDLER:  Correct.

 5             Mr. Roberts, please begin.

 6             MR. ROBERTS:  Thank you very much.  Are we on?

 7   Thank you very much.  Welcome to California and thank you

 8   very much for your patience in this long day.  It is very

 9   much appreciated.  My name is Bob Roberts.  I am the

10   Executive Director for the California Ski Industry

11   Association and I am here on behalf of our 37 resort members

12   and our Board of Directors.

13             The winter sports industry in California is in

14   fact the proverbial canary at the 7,000 foot mine shaft.

15   And quite honestly, we are not feeling too good these days.

16   For the last half century we have been providing

17   recreational opportunities on the snowpack and making our

18   living off of that.  With the demise of timber, cattle, the

19   extractive industries on our mountain communities, we have

20   become recreation and tourism.  The real economic engines

21   for the mountain communities in California.

22             Today our industry attracts about eight million

23   visitors, literally from all over the world, to ski and

24   snowboard on our slopes.  This is an infusion in the

25   mountain communities of California of a little over $2.5

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               224

 1   billion each year.  And that really doesn't include the

 2   billions of private and public infrastructure dollars that

 3   are going in to make these communities continue to be able

 4   to attract and complete in the competitive industry that

 5   we're in, which is tourism and recreation.

 6             Thirty-five years ago snow making was a novelty.

 7   About a handful of areas in Southern California engaged in

 8   it and, quite honestly, the rest of us felt that it was

 9   really quite a folly.  The Sierra Nevada and the Siskiyou

10   Ranges, we pretty reliably got 30 to 40 feet of snow.  Our

11   season lasted six months.  The drought years were few and

12   they were far and few in-between.

13             At a personal level I have a very clear memory of

14   the spring of 1974.  On Mount Shasta I had to actually

15   trench lines so that skiers could work over our 40 foot

16   snowpack so that our chair lifts would operate.  It's a

17   memory that stays with me today because we really never

18   really worried about our snow quality.  In fact we needed

19   four feet of snow just to cover the rocks.

20             That's all changed.  Today our resorts statewide

21   have tens of millions invested in snow making and these are

22   large, sophisticated snow making systems throughout the

23   state, Southern California all the way through Tahoe,

24   Mammoth, up to Mount Shasta.

25             The reports that we got from Scripps in 1999 and

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               225

 1   again from the National Academy of Sciences in 2004, and

 2   what we heard earlier today, really just confirmed for us

 3   what we have seen firsthand.  Over the last 50 years the

 4   springtime temperatures in the Sierra have increased two to

 5   three degrees Fahrenheit and it has been noticeable.  Our

 6   springtime runoffs are now about two weeks earlier.

 7             This particular season was a real punctuation

 8   mark.  Clearly it was a drought year.  Our snowpack was down

 9   40 percent.  Our season, quite frankly, ended a month early

10   and our visitation was off 18 percent.  Now it's a bit of an

11   anomaly but the fact of the matter is it does bring

12   attention very clearly to our dependence on weather and the

13   dynamic changes that are clearly happening for us.

14             We've looked at other studies, these same studies,

15   studies that have been done in Utah and Colorado and Europe

16   as well, and they have all pointed to the same thing.  If we

17   do nothing our snowpack, particularly here in the Sierra

18   Nevada, will disappear by the end of this next century.  It

19   will reduce by at least 80 percent.  And you heard similar

20   kinds of discussions and points made by our scientists

21   earlier.  This for us is just an extraordinarily concerning

22   and a very difficult situation to foresee for our industry.

23             Obviously we want to see mitigation and we'd like

24   to see it very quickly and handily here in California.  The

25   ski and snowboard industry in California, along with our

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               226

 1   counterparts throughout the world, are really committed to

 2   this question of climate change.  How can we mitigate it?

 3   Frankly we are a very small industry.

 4             Our industry, the California ski industry, was an

 5   early and a very ardent supporter of AB 1439, equally for AB

 6   32.  We partner, for example, with the NRDC on a Keep Winter

 7   Cool campaign that is a national campaign that we have all

 8   participated in.

 9             Our resorts are on low carbon diets.  We buy green

10   tag energy, we use biodiesel in our fleets, we have

11   aggressive recycling programs.  We work very closely with

12   our transportation systems in our districts to try and

13   encourage public transportation as well as carpooling.  And

14   our construction, to the extent possible, all of our new

15   construction is as green as we can make it.  So that our

16   industry is doing what it can but we are a very, very, very

17   small industry.

18             So one of the things our Board has most recently

19   elected to do is to produce an IMAX.  And I think we have

20   all seen the award-winning production on the part of Ex-Vice

21   President Gore.  And if you can get an Oscar for a

22   PowerPoint presentation we think that an IMAX talking about

23   the greener way is going to be appropriate.  And we have

24   sponsored one before and we are going to sponsor this again

25   because our last one went on five continents.  It was

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               227

 1   Adventures in Wild California.  And we feel that this is a

 2   way tog et messages out to people not only in the United

 3   States but broadly across the world that will resonate and

 4   will stay in communities and will attract schoolteachers

 5   leaders of communities.

 6             So as a small industry we're doing everything we

 7   can but we need this waiver.  We need these changes.  And we

 8   feel very strongly that this is the time, it's here and we

 9   have the grounds.  I think if you look at the compelling and

10   extraordinary language, which are the precise grounds in the

11   language, they merit this waiver.  And on behalf of our

12   industry, our mountain communities and our millions of

13   winter sports visitors we urge you and request that you

14   grant the waiver.  Thank you.

15             PRESIDING OFFICER GRUNDLER:  Thank you,

16   Mr. Roberts, thank you all.

17             It is typically our practice to --

18             Let me invite up Panel 11, some other non-

19   governmental organizations who are presenting testimony

20   today.  The Sierra Club, Environment California, The Union

21   of Concerned Scientists, Arizona PIRG, Global Exchange,

22   Republicans for Environmental Protection and the Planning

23   and Conservation League.  Thank you all for coming.

24   Mr. Zichella, why don't you lead off.

25             MR. ZICHELLA:  Good afternoon.  Several other

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               228

 1   people have said it and I know it's been a long day so I am

 2   going to do the best I can not to repeat what other people

 3   have said.  Many good points have been made about the

 4   impacts on California by people who can do a far better job

 5   than I can at it.  Certainly I think that you get the idea.

 6   We have a lot at stake here.  A lot of the impacts our state

 7   are experiencing are not just impacts that are forecast,

 8   they are already observable.

 9             My name is Carl Zichella.  I am the Regional Staff

10   Director for the Sierra Club for California, Nevada and

11   Hawaii.  I am testifying today on behalf of our 210,000

12   Sierra Club members in these three states and our 1.3

13   million members and supporters nationwide.

14             As I mentioned, a lot has happened since 2004 that

15   we have talked about today.  We know about the IPCC reports

16   and what they've said, we know about the impacts that the

17   state's research has been about California.  We have seen

18   the Supreme Court decision clarifying the authority of EPA

19   to regulate CO2, which really should guide your actions in

20   this waiver.  If you have the authority to regulate CO2 as a

21   pollutant under the Clean Air Act so certainly does

22   California.  That Supreme Court ruling was a watershed.  It

23   really turns a corner I think in many ways politically in

24   this country.

25             And one of the developments that we have seen

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               229

 1   since this law was enacted was a broad public consensus that

 2   is bipartisan now nationwide, to the 60th percentile

 3   nationwide.  You heard earlier, we're to the 80th percentile

 4   in support of immediate action here in California.  I think

 5   it's time to really move forward and not to allow any

 6   further delay.

 7             Skipping over a number of things that have already

 8   been said.  I do want to mention that I got kind of angry

 9   this morning listening to the auto makers.  And I know part

10   of it was sort of a sense of bad deja vu.  We've heard the

11   same kind of remarks from them over and over and over again

12   through the years.  You heard the representative this

13   morning say, someone is going to say, there they go again.

14   Well someone is going to say, there they go again.

15             As I listened to them this morning it brought to

16   mind the words of I. F. Stone who once wrote, in order to

17   understand this year's lies you have to remember last year's

18   lies.  This is an industry that told us it was too expensive

19   to put safety glass in cars.  It was too expensive to put

20   padded dashboards in cars.  That seatbelts were going to

21   bankrupt their industry.  That they couldn't put catalytic

22   converters on automobiles or they'd all go broke.

23             In 1973 one of my personal favorites was the Ford

24   Motor Company testifying before Congress on corporate

25   automobile fuel economy standards, that if we pass CAFE

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               230

 1   standards at all everyone would be driving Pintos by now.

 2   One quick look out the window shows how wrong that was.  And

 3   in fact they have never been right.

 4             One of the examples they gave to try to mitigate

 5   this perception was that the zero emission vehicle mandate

 6   in California was a bit of a failure.  Well that's

 7   interesting, seeing as how they never tried to market an

 8   electric car and they bought up every single -- and they

 9   took back every single electric car that was leased in the

10   state and destroyed it.

11             Now it's quite amazing to me that they'll sit

12   there and argue for no action to be taken.  They will

13   criticize this particular law for which we're seeing a

14   waiver saying that it can't solve the global warming problem

15   on it's own.  It's not going to bring down global

16   temperatures.

17             Well, you know, as we've also heard scientists

18   tell you, there is no silver bullet.  But i would argue that

19   this piece of legislation that we're talking about today, AB

20   1493, is part of what I would characterize as silver

21   buckshot.  The kinds of things, the many kinds of things

22   we're going to need to do to get a handle on this problem.

23             I would characterize the industry's arguments this

24   morning as one being, let's not take the first step on a

25   journey, and then be surprised that we never get to the

     PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION<PHONE_NUMBER>

                                                               231

 1   destination.  That we shouldn't do anything.  That we should

 2   just hold off.

 3             Well I just think that these arguments are not

 4   only irresponsible, they are actually immoral.  Because

 5   knowing what we know right now about the problem of global

 6   warming and the delay that we have been forced to wait

 7   through for the last six years, it's just inexcusable that

 8   further delay would occur.

 9             There is zero doubt in the scientific community

10   any more, well I should say maybe there's ten percent of

11   those that still think that global warming isn't real.  With