ÿWPCL ûÿ2BJ|xÐÐÐ ¨` ÐÐ ÐÕ ÕÕ` RALEIGH REPORTING SERVICE (919) 834-8777 `ÕÐÐSAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### SOUTHERN APPALACHAIN MOUNTAIN INITIATIVE GOVERNING BODY MEETING APRIL 28, 1995 3RD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, ARCHDALE BUILDING, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA BEGINNING AT 9:30 A.M. ÐÐ Reported by - Carlene M. Bloss Raleigh, North Carolina 9:30 a.m. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### Governing Body members or their designees who were present: Steve Levitas, NC - Chairman Harold Reheis, GA - Vice Chairman Dale Farley for David Callaghan - WV David Carr - Public Interest Suzette Kimball for Robert Baker - NPS Tom Hopkins for Honorable Becky Norton Dunlop - VA Bruce Miller for John Hankinson - Region 4 EPA Joe Harwood - Industry Randy Phillips - USDA Forest Service Jim Joy for Lewis Shaw - SC Diana Andrews for Honorable Phillip Shepherd - KY Richard Grusnick for James Warr - AL Not Present: Don Dills - TN Peter Kostmayer - Region 3, EPA Committee Chairpersons who spoke at meeting: Lucy Cabot-Smethurst - Public Advisory Committee Chair Douglas Neeley - Technical Oversight Committee Chair Brock Nicholson - Policy Committee (Vice Chair) Also in attendance: John J. Jansen - Southern Company Mike Stroben - Duke Power Company Jeanelle Moseley - NC/SC Petroleum Council Rebecca Kemp - SAMI TOC Bonnie Nobou - UNC (spectator) Brian J. Morton - EDF Deborah Amaral - UNC Sally Shaver - EPA/OAQPS Rich Damberg - EPA/OAQPS Viney Aneja - UNC student Courtney Lewis - UNC student Craig Miller - UNC student Angelique Nelson - UNC Student Peiffer Brandt - UNC student Leslie Cox - SAMI Dale Farley - WVDEP Jim Joy - SC DHEC David Carr - SELL Christopher Doss - VA SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### CHAIRMAN: We have an agenda before us ÐÐthat the staff has prepared. Let me ask you to take a look at that. Does everybody have a copy of the agenda? MS. COX: It's not in any particular order. CHAIRMAN: All right. Well, let's say a few words then about the agenda to see if anybody at this point has items that need to be added or if there are strong views about the order in which we take these items. My hope is to get us out of here no later than 3:30. I'll make very effort to conclude before then. If any members of the governing body have to leave before that time and need for us to get to particular items, please let me know. Well, you're thinking about that, the principle order of business and the purpose of this interim meeting was an update and review of the proposed emission management options coming forward from the policy committee. So it would be my suggestion that we jump right into those and be sure to get through that order of business before we get to any of these other matters, but I'm open to SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### suggestions on that. MR. REHEIS: That's fine. CHAIRMAN: Any proposed modifications or additions to the agenda? If not, let's proceed to the emissions management options agenda item. These have come to us, I guess, via the operations committee. MR. REHEIS: When anybody speaks if you would please identify yourself by first and last name so that the court reporter can put the record together. MR. KLIMEK: My name is Allan Klimek. I am with the North Carolina Operations Committee. We did have a conference call where we considered all of these. I'm not sure this is exactly a hundred percent accurate because when there was silence or I wasn't able to -- we had some problems communicating with everybody, I put general support here for all of the EMOs, but basically this is the order. I think, Leslie, that probably we have copies of the EMOs. Probably for this discussion what you'd want is the actual EMOs which we might want to go through one at a time. And then there's also a sheet, I guess, everybody's comments, that SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### sent in written comments, should have been sent to everybody, also. But I would say that, in general, we started it off with some general comments saying that if you support the EMO, that should mean that there's a good faith effort that that EMO would be implemented. I think the operations committee, generally, was in agreement with that concept. And I think there was also a general feeling that probably some more detail is needed for implementation plans, how we're actually going to implement these EMOs. So then if you look down there industry had some concern or comments on most of them except for the last two. I think everybody was in support of the very last two that I have listed that are called 16, 28, 29, and part of 59 energy efficiency in public. And then also 30, 59, and 63, which was energy efficiency for decision makers, although, Virginia has expressed some concerns about all of those. And I don't know how you want to proceed. CHAIRMAN: Well, let me say a few introductory words about where we are in the process. I think everybody knows at our May meeting SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### a year ago we tentatively adopted and subsequently -- finally adopted an operating plan for SAMI which set out a three-year timetable for the development of recommendations to our states including emissions management options that would be fully evaluated through the SAMI committees and SAMI process. Part of the discussion and part of what was incorporated in the plan at that time was a process to look at what came to be referred to as near-term EMOs. The idea being that there might be some obvious noncontroversial measures that didn't require full indepth analysis because their benefits so obviously out weighed their costs, and they really were not significantly controversial that we could make some early recommendations to show some progress in this effort. So the policy committee began a process last summer and continuing on into this year of looking at a broad range of EMOs and trying to see if some met that test for our consideration at this point in the process. They have worked long and hard on that. You policy committee members can help me. I think these came out of the policy committee with the policy committee's endorsement, the list we SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### have before us. MR. NICHOLSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN: But we've had them under review for a month or so, we've not had an opportunity for the governing body to discuss or debate these prior to today. It's my intention for us to have that discussion today. It's not my intention to take a vote on these items unless there's an exceptional case where that is the pleasure of the group. One of things that was communicated at the operations committee, is that we don't intend to take votes lightly. And by that I mean, that we, as the representative of our states, and voting either at this stage of the process or in the future, we need to be sure that we do have full support and that that a vote indicates an intention to carry forward or to make every effort to carry forward these EMOs. And speaking for our state, and I suspect for others, that there's a need to review these back home further in light of the discussion today. But my hope would be that this phase of the process will be fully resolved; that is, the near-term EMO consideration at our upcoming meeting SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### in Greenville. So with that background are there any questions about that? If not, I suggest that we just launch into -- MR. CARR: Did you say whether or not the governing body would be acting on some of these EMOs in this meeting? CHAIRMAN: My expectation is that we would not act on them at this meeting. I hope that we will discuss them in full and get some indication of where we are on them and give people opportunity to validate that with their states. There has not been any -- if we get to the point where this is sufficient comfort on some of these and there is no objection, I have no problem with doing that. I want to be sure we do not take any votes lightly because I think the vote would indicate an intent on the part of the state representatives to go back and seek to have these measures implemented in their state. I haven't had an opportunity prior to today to talk to any of my counterparts as to their concerns. But it would be my intention to fully conclude this phase of the SAMI operating plan, the consideration and action on near-term EMOs at the Greenville meeting. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### I suggest then that we just proceed through the list in the order that we have. Is everybody working off of the same document? In terms of -- what documents do we have before us for consideration of these EMOs? MR. NICHOLSON: March 6 is the date. CHAIRMAN: Does everybody have this handout with the March 6 date at the top? MR. PHILLIPS: No, I need one if you have an extra one. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to present these? MR. KLIMEK: Brock is actually the vice chairman. Bob Kerr could not would be here so he could probably just give us a sense on this one. CHAIRMAN: Brock Nicholson from High Air Quality section and vice chairman of the policy committee, let me ask Brock to make a brief presentation on each of these as we begin our discussion. MR. NICHOLSON: I am Brock Nicholson for the record there. I don't know if I should really go in detail, you have them in front of you. I think maybe the -- I'll give just the essence of the action that is contemplated here. And I think the SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### one initial comment, I think it is clear in my mind, that the policy committee believes that these are scopes primarily in concept, and that they probably do need more fleshing out in the sense of implementation strategy, and I think a number of the comments kind of go to that point. And that would certainly be the intent perhaps with advice from this group today on direction and nature. MR. CARR: Brock, can I make one comment about that. It was my expectation probably just in my own that the governing body was coming here today to approve these in concept or disapproving them in concept; however, the policy committee did approve these at the December meeting, they've been in this form since March 6, so I think it would be helpful for the body to -- if there can be agreement to approve something in concept and then flesh out the details down the road, if we can do that rather than leaving two more months to have them sitting out there -- decide one way or the other about -- CHAIRMAN: Well, that's a fair comment, and I do think we ought to get some sense today at that conceptual level of do we want an idea fleshed out, more detail, more specifics, a number of the SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### comments that we've received already indicated that there were questions about what the proposal really means or involves and ask the committee to go back and develop that, or there may be some today where there's a sufficient sense that the group is not interested in pursuing an EMO at this time, and it should not remain on the agenda for further action. So I think that's a helpful clarification of my earlier comments. MR. NICHOLSON: Okay. No. 8 has to do with mobile sources, and I guess the operable action is a recommendation that the National Park Service and relevant state agencies examine emissions reduction strategies regarding mobile sources in the parks to the greatest extent possible and number of possible strategies have been suggested, at least areas that measures could be looked at, including restrictions on automobile and truck traffic provisions for park and ride with low emission buses or trollies and/or in the position of fees. I guess our sense is that is not an exclusive list just a suggested list to look at. So the essence is a recommendation by SAMI that the park service and the state agencies examine emission SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### reduction options and strategies as possible measures. And beyond that, I don't know if I can say anything else, so I'll open it up for discussion. CHAIRMAN: So if I understand it and this illustrates where we are in the process with these EMOs, this is not a recommendation that we would approve implementation of any strategies, but just a course of study in developing information that would be available to us later in the process on this type of strategy; is that fair? MR. NICHOLSON: I think that's fair. And certainly, the governing body may want to provide direction as to particular options to pursue for an implementation plan, I think that would be good guidance, also. And I might add, and I'm not sure I recall the author of this EMO, but I think a number of the authors of these various ones are in the room, and certainly they should speak up and further explain the intent and the objective. CHAIRMAN: Comments discussion of EMO No. 8, Mobile Sources in the National Parks. MS. KIMBALL: Since this affects the National Park Service directly, for the record this SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### is Suzette Kimball of the National Park Service. The Park Service has no objection to this at all in concept. We want the governing board to SAMI to be aware that certain of our parks have constraints that are imposed upon them by Congress in terms of enabling legislation that mandates vehicular access into the parks. So some of the proposed actions may, in certain park areas, require Congressional action in order to implement. But we certainly support and are willing now to commit to going forward with developing strategic planning efforts in our general management plans and our resource management plans to investigate the possibility of reducing emissions from mobile sources in specific park areas. As long as it's recognized that in many cases the ability to implement those recommendations rests not with the park service individually, but with Congress. CHAIRMAN: Just to comment on the language. The language was debated in the policy committee and was refined to come down to pursue strategies, so that the -- I think it would be more than a recommendation for the park service to report back to the governing body, but rather the governing SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### body sort of endorsing this concept and recommending the park services that they pursue strategies. That doesn't mean that have to adopt something that they pursue. Pursue this effort to reduce mobile source emissions. MR. HOPKINS: Mr. Chairman, I think this is one of the EMOs that clearly needs more study. I just would say the folks here from the park service that, you know, these kinds of restrictions and the fish and wildlife service have been involved in some of this recently. Restricting access to our citizen's ability to go into their parks and see and enjoy our parks, they are really working against themselves when they do these things. I mean, this just does not make sense to me. I think that it will work against the purpose that we're trying to achieve here, which is clean up our environment, clean up our air. There is no cost-benefit analysis -- on this sheet where it says cost benefits, I mean, that is a joke. I mean, it doesn't tell me anything. This is -- we're talking about something that costs a lot of money to achieve virtually nothing in the way of improving air quality. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### And that's why we need sound, scientific information. That's why we need cost-benefit analysis. And if we don't have it, we're not going to achieve what we're all here to achieve, which is cleaner air. CHAIRMAN: I think there's an issue here about whether we're talking about development of additional information that may feed into our ultimate decisions or something more than that because this is -- the reasons that Tom described, this is a complex issue with a lot of trade-offs, and it's unclear what it would ultimately entail. As a user of the national parks, I don't know what the ultimate outcome would be and how my reaction would be as a customer. It strikes me that there's a lot of value in asking the park service to look at these issues, and so we know more about what they would involve and can be subject to that analysis. I don't have a problem with endorsing a recommendation along those lines, but I would share your concern about endorsing -- adopting a measure by this body that would imply that we would approve of any outcome of that study without knowing what it SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### would involve. There may be some good things along these lines, that maybe don't justify the cost. How do you see that plan? MS. KIMBALL: Perhaps this EMO needs wordsmithing, but the way that we interpreted it was not that SAMI was directing the park service to implement restrictions to vehicular access or any type of access into the parks, but that SAMI was recommending that we look at ways to reduce emissions, whether that was by providing alternative sources -- well, I don't know what the alternatives might be at the moment because we haven't gone through the planning process. But that this recommendation would -- this EMO would in fact recommend that the park service do exactly what the gentlemen from the Commonwealth is suggesting that we look at the cost benefits of various types of alternatives. And as you all know, any of these types of efforts, if we were to go as far as to implement it in the park service, it has to go through the full public review and compliance procedure. And so anything that would be recommended would be open for full public involvement and public comment before SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### anything became implementible at all. CHAIRMAN: Other comments. MR. HARWOOD: Just a follow up, I guess, on both of these discussion pieces. I think as one who -- as one of the ones who suggested that we look at this, I think our thoughts were that there are a lot of vehicles in the parks. There perhaps are a lot of near-term problems with vehicles, and we, recognizing the fact that major highways are actually going through some of these facilities, we're not talking about putting in a toll gate and making folks, you know, walk -- ride some kind of vehicle across the park and then do something else do something else. MR. HOPKINS: I think it can be interpreted that way. MR. HARWOOD: Probably so. The thought was, though, that in certain areas if there's like a very highly used area, has a tremendous amount of vehicular traffic, that could be used for other things like trams or other vehicles or buses or whatever. Those are the kinds of things I think that we were asking, I was thinking of when I suggested this thought. That they look at ways to SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### minimize that kind of stuff, and certainly I realize the federal implications of dealing with the parks but that was -- CHAIRMAN: That's right. And I can tell you that I would much rather be a passenger driving around on these mountain roads and getting to enjoy the scenery then having my wife tell me all the time that I don't that get to look and I have to keep my eyes on the road. So there are a lot of options that may have great appeal to customers that haven't been developed. And as I understand this EMO, it has appeal because, frankly, if we don't ask the park service to do this, I'm not sure we will have the full range of options and ideas and creative approaches to these issues available for our review at the end of -- or during the SAMI work plan. If we were just to try to consider what we know now, this is a complicated enough issue that it would benefit from some exploration by the park service over the life of SAMI. MR. HOPKINS: Steve, my only question is, if someone could come into the room today or down the rode or whatever, and tell us that if we SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### implement this, if the park service does a study and they feel preparking lots have electric buses to take you around through the parks, how will that impact the environment? Is it really something that's going to benefit the environment? Is it going to clean up the air? Is it going to clean up the air this much or that much? CHAIRMAN: And my suggestion is that pursuing this EMO as described, would simply allow the park service to develop an idea in enough detail that it could be subjected to that kind of analysis that you're calling for. Right now, you got a range of sort of pie in the sky ideas that you couldn't even evaluate because we don't know what they are. And I think there would be a lot value in having the park service --. MR. HOPKINS: Of course, those electric buses will be serviced by what, Tennessee Power or Duke? CHAIRMAN: I'm sure Joe would be quite happy. MR. HOPKINS: Sulfur oxide. CHAIRMAN: Is the sense of the group one of support for an EMO along these lines that asks SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### the park service to develop ideas along these lines by not endorsing implementation of anything without knowing what that is and what its costs and benefits would be? That's the nature of this debate back and forth. I see nodding heads. MR. REHIES: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Is that generally where we are on this? MS. ANDREWS: That's exactly what the EMO says, examine reduction. It just recommends the park service pursue strategies to reduce possible strategies to include, but it's not descriptive at all. I don't see that --- without endorsing it, I don't think we'll ever get the types of cost benefit that the gentlemen from Virginia wants. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think we have a pretty clear sense of the group on the concept here. I would ask that the operations committee and the policy committee, I don't know if there is any specific direction the other members want to give. I understand the phrase, pursue strategies, was discussed and wordsmithed in the policy committee, but I think Tom makes a fair point that that could be interpreted to mean that we are endorsing the SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### implementation of those strategies without further consideration of their cost and benefits, and I don't understand that to be the intention of the group. And there is some internal inconsistency. The title says to examine emissions reductions. So I understand what you're saying, Diana, but I think the intention of the group is quite clear, and we ought to make it quite clear where we are at on this EMO. I sense that on the terms discussed, we have a generally favorable reaction to this proposal. MR. HARWOOD: Mr. Chairman, is it assumed that the park service would take responsibility for doing the study and analysis? That's a question I mean, we don't necessary say that, but I presume. CHAIRMAN: I think we can clarify that. And I would also like to see this include a request for some type of report back to us, Suzette, if you could figure out what a reasonable time frame is for it to be useful in the SAMI process. What we're really looking for is some specific options that you might bring back to us that would help feed into our ultimate deliberations. MR. CARR: As written on the description SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### action, it was that NPS would have air quality regulators. MS. KIMBALL: It has the implication that this also includes state parks and recreation departments, and we, of course, have no authority over any state areas to go in and do these kinds of studies. MR. CARR: To the extent that the states have expertise in public source issues, probably more so than the park service does, that it ought to be a cooperative discussion at least of whether there's things that can be done here or not. CHAIRMAN: We'll be happy to -- I think, we'll be happy to work with you, but I think that we ought to ask the park service to take the lead in developing some ideas for our consideration. I think that's the gist of the EMO. Anything further on that item? MR. JANSEN: I'm John Jansen with Southern Company. One point of clarification. If we're going to be doing some fairly extensive evaluation of this EMO, are we saying that we want the technical oversight committee to do an -- to include it as one of its EMOs that it's going to be an SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### integrated assessment on, or is it they are being asked to be put aside or dealt with by just the park service. CHAIRMAN: My sense of where we are on that is, that this is a request and a recommendation that the park service do work that would develop this EMO in more detail, so that it could be subjected to that kind of review. Until you know what you're talking about as a source, there's nothing to evaluate. So I think the answer is that when this EMO is implemented, the park service will come back to us at some point in the process with some mobile source strategies that would ultimately be subjected to review. MR. NEELEY?: Could I request that it might be clearer if the request is for the park service to more clearly articulate the EMO itself; that is, the actions required. That would be of immense help to the technical oversight committee to then do the assessment, because if we know precisely what the EMO says and the action required, then the TOC can do a much better job of doing the assessment. And that would go for almost, you know, SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### just about any EMO. MR. DAMBERG: Rich Damberg of EPA. I thought the purpose of this EMO was not to hurdle through the technical committee for assessment. I thought it was more of a near-term EMO, and the park service is going to work with the states to analyze it, right? CHAIRMAN: Well, if you want SAMI at some point, park service comes forward and says we're thinking about electric buses in the parks. If you want SAMI to endorse that specific approach to mobile sources emissions, I think this governing body is going to have to know whether that gets you more or less reductions at what relative cost or anything else that we might recommend. MR. MORTON: I'm Brian Morton with the Environmental Defense Fund. Steve, I think I have a different interpretation of what's entailed in this EMO. As I read this, the action that would be taken, would be taken by, let's just use the example of the park service, and that the park service, following its administrative procedures, would conduct whatever inquiry, including public hearings, et cetera, are necessary to determine what is SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### effective, what is efficient. I do not wish to speak on behalf of the -- for the park service, but if it's not clear to me that the park service would necessarily come back to SAMI and ask SAMI to endorse actions that -- CHAIRMAN: The park service has no obligation to come back to SAMI and ask us to do that. What I'm saying is, if they want us to do that, it's going to have to be subjected to the same kind of review as other things that we would consider. MR. HARWOOD: Then again, are you saying it doesn't preclude, since the park service controls the parks mobile sources. CHAIRMAN: We have no control over what the park service does in their parks. I think the gist of the EMO is that there's value in developing these types of proposals. I don't think there's value editorializing the park service adopting them without very careful evaluation and analysis of their costs and benefits and whether they do that independently or ask SAMI for SAMI's endorsement and it's subjected to our review, is it up to them. MR. NICHOLSON: Mr. Chairman, Block SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### Nicholson again. I guess one question on the table in that these are near-term EMOs originally put forward by the policy committee that were thought to maybe not warrant the full integrated assessment that certainly a long list of EMOs that we've developed will be appropriate for. I guess a point of clarification here, are we saying, maybe after initial assessment or examination by the park service, presuming they come back to this body, then a decision could be made at that point in time whether or not further assessment is needed in the context of the integrated assessment. That's sort of one option. The other one is, I'm sort of asking are we saying today that it necessarily will in fact go through there. In the context near-term, we thought that maybe there is a subset so-called near-term that would not necessarily, unless this body thinks that's appropriate. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think that we're getting caught up in semantics a bit here, but it's hard for me to imagine that this governing body would recommend a particular strategy for mobile source emissions in the park without subjecting it SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### to the kind of analysis that we're talking about. So we don't even know what that strategy is. It's impossible to endorse it in concept. There are an infinite number of approaches with wildly varying costs and benefits that would have to be considered. What we can endorse I think is the idea that this concept, this type of approach, is one that we would like the parks to explore. If they want our endorsement, they're going to need to -- it's inconceivable to me that a particular strategy of this sort would emerge that SAMI would recommend without analysis. There are just so many different variables. MR. HOPKINS: I really have a sense, Mr. Chairman, that if we had a good scientific analysis of what we're talking about today, and of course, we have expended a lot of time on this discussion. I would say that if you had a chart up there and it measured the contributions to air degradation of air quality in our parks, I don't think this would be even be a stroke of the pen on that chart. That's why I think it's outrageous that we are spending time talking about it. People in the park service know this, it's SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### not caused by vehicles going through the parks. That's not what's causing the degradation. If, you know, if we're going to put people in parking lots and make them ride electric buses through our parks, people are going to get outraged, and they're going to get angry. They are not going to visit our parks and maybe that's what everybody wants, I don't know. I personally think that our parks are there to enjoy. And I think this is just dumb if we don't have good science. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think we probably talked this around about as much as we can. I think the sense of group was, there is support to ask the park service to look at this type of strategy and see if there is something that you want to bring back for our consideration. You're obviously free to pursue any strategy along these lines that make sense to you on your output. I for one think it would be helpful to know the answer to the question that you raised as we go forward. If somebody told me that there was an idea that would get us significant reductions at a far lower cost than other things we're talking about, I'd like to know that. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### MR. HOPKINS: And we'll vote for it. MR. NICHOLSON: The next item is EMO 88 on Reid Vapor Pressure. I believe Mr. Jim Joy originally suggested this one. In essence, it's to promote Reid Vapor Pressure, which is the volatility of gasoline, for fuels or gasoline sold in the SAMI region. The operable action suggested here is that SAMI will initiate and coordinate meetings between the petroleum industry, state agencies, EPA, and other interested parties to examine possible policies to give incentive to the petroleum industry to make widely available during summer months, i.e., the ozone season. Perhaps RVP levels no higher than 7.8 PSI. And after the initial meetings and more detailed information is obtained, the EMO may be referred to the TOC for appropriate analysis. Jim, I don't know if you want to elaborate. MR. JOY: I'd be glad to try to answer any questions relative to it. I think initially some of the -- I'm Jim Joy from South Carolina. Some of the earlier activities and actions have, relative to this EMO, had some language about implement this as a requirement. And again, I think the policy SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### committee as well as multiple representatives there, felt it was too early to implement such a requirement without having some of the scientific background that we all expressed with the earlier one. The main thrust of this EMO would be to sit down at the table with the stakeholders involved and see what incentives are out there for it, what will the science really show, what benefits will we arrive at, is it something possible. MR. HOPKINS: Have you had conversations with the petroleum industry? MR. JOY: I have had some. One of the dilemmas that most of the states would do through in an activity like is, it's very difficult as a single state to start talking about some of these issues. One of the dilemmas that would come about such an effort that became very clear to me, is the actual logistics of having that gasoline or that type of fuel delivered to certain areas or areas of concern, as well as cost and storing that type of an activity, as well as concern about states having different levels or asking for different levels of RVP across the region. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### So I think there are some incentives regionally if we look at this type of an activity for some reductions. I think there's a lot more effort that needs to be involved in terms of the benefits and the true cost to society as well as to the industry on this. But only by sitting down at the -- in meetings like with policy groups, and stakeholders like petroleum councils, vendors, drilling producers, and things like that can we actually derive these benefits. And then if you need to, you go back to the technical oversight committee with the specifics that they would need to be able to run the integrated assessment and tell us what those costs and benefits would be. CHAIRMAN: So in that regard, this is similar to the previous item that this is really a recommendation to develop, explore a concept in greater detail, so it can be more fully evaluated; is that fair? MR. JOY: Yes, sir, that would fair. The other maybe addition is that actually takes it back to the policy committee or some subpolicy committee as a vehicle to continue this discussion and have SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### some time frame or responsiveness to come back to the full policy committee, as well as the operating committee, and the governing body with recommendations. CHAIRMAN: Jeanelle Mosley is here from our petroleum council. Do you want to say something about this? MS. MOSLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Jeanelle Mosley with the North and the South Carolina Petroleum Council, and we have had discussions with Mr. Joy regarding his recommendation, and we welcome the opportunity to participate in the discussion, and as Mr. Joy said, to look at the cost and benefits and the technical aspect of what a regional RVP will really get you in the benefit. I think there's a lot of question about, you know, what it can do for ozone and what the cost may be to the public, but we certainly welcome the opportunity to participate in the process. CHAIRMAN: Good. Thank you. I notice in the title the word promotes, and in light of what I've heard, it seems to me that examine or explore would be more appropriate. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### MR. HOPKINS: Has there been any recent developments on the situation like in Wisconsin. I think it was Wisconsin, Milwaukee. I talked to Mary Nichols a couple of weeks ago about this, on the reformulated gasoline blow up that people are becoming ill over this and this sort of thing. Are there any developments on that? MR. NEELEY: Doug Neeley with EPA. It certainly is an issue and it's becoming an issue in other areas, but it's one that has not been resolved, yet. As of right now, EPA is still endorsing the reforming though, where it's requiring -- MR. HOPKINS: We've had very few reports in our state. MS. ANDREWS: Mr. Chairman, I have, speaking for Kentucky, a request that the reference, specifically to lower revapor pressure, be replaced by the phrase alternative fuels. We are, of course, using RFG, and at this point in time, feel there is a lot of benefits, too, to reform the gas program. I don't think we could support this EMO as written with it speaking just specifically to the lower RVP, and we'd prefer to see that phrase SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### replaced. CHAIRMAN: Brock was just observing to me, in response to Tom's question, that there are a number of different approaches to gasoline formulation and that sometimes get lumped together. What we're talking about here is specifically revapor pressure issues, there are also alternative fuel positions, there are reformulated gasoline issues, I guess one subset of that is oxygenated fuels which may be the -- I don't know if that was the issue or the situation that Tom referred to kind of reformulate -- MR. NICHOLSON: Reformulate. MR. HOPKINS: Yeah, reformulate. CHAIRMAN: So I guess we need to get some clarity on what the range, and I gather this is the only EMO before today that deals with this issue of gasoline formulation in general. MR. JOY: Just as a follow up. I also serve on the policy committee. As you can see by the number on this EMO, it's No. 88, and I think there's a least 89 of them if not more, and there's a lot more that have not come forward, yet, completely with full discussion. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### I am aware that there are other EMOs dealing with alternative fuels, other fuel type considerations, reformulated gas as well. They will, I expect, be debated at some point in time. , I can't tell you when on the policy committee. As it relates to this particular EMO, the policy committee really has not had any debate on issues outside of revapor pressure. So I just offer that as a concern. If we start trying to wordsmith or maybe go beyond what the EMO is at least in writing. CHAIRMAN: And I guess the response would be that the intent of the policy committee is to address those other issues related to gasoline formulation. MR. JOY: From my standpoint, I do hope that that's not taken as a negative towards consideration of those issues. The concern there is just that the full group hasn't had the time and the discussion that it has spent on this particular issue. MR. NICHOLSON: I may just quickly add, part of the point there, is there was a knowledge up front that there was less controversy as to cost and maybe some of the issues that came up in Milwaukee SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### with regard to RVP as there has been revapor pressure as it has been reformulated. And in the context of this being a near-term, if you would, versus a longer term. And I think the acknowledgment, as Mr. Joy just indicated, the other issues were deemed to be more long term. CHAIRMAN: In confining this to revapor pressure, it does not preclude by any means further review and analysis of other alternative fuel strategies. MS. ANDREWS: I don't see how you could look at this EMO as a near-term. I don't think this is a near-term EMO. CHAIRMAN: Again, what's being recommended here is not that anything is going to be endorsed for implementation, but that we ask the policy committee to initiate and coordinate discussions with the petroleum industry and others about further development, expiration, refinement of revapor pressure options. So I agree with you, and the same thing I said on the previous EMO, that there's nothing that we could -- nothing that I could support not knowing a lot more about it. So what's happening in the near-term, is the development and SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### refinement of the proposal for future analysis and consideration. MS. ANDREWS: But if you're going to examine low RVP, the corollary that you would examine at the same time is RFG, because RFG is a federal program, it's enforced, the formulation is specified by the federal government. Low RVP is unenforceable accept at the local level. I think they need to be lumped. If you're going to look at one, I think you need to look at the whole picture. MR. NICHOLSON: But the policy committee would recognize there is an efficiency of effort here in terms of the discussions, and I think we would be open to the directive to look at all of these at the same time. MR. REHEIS: Why don't we change the language then instead to examine lower RVP, reformulated gas, and other alternative fuels, so it will read the same. I think that covers the whole smear. MR. NICHOLSON: One thought is that we could still perhaps come out if it's a suggested outcome, even addressing only RVP, but we'll agree certainly to look at them. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### CHAIRMAN: All that amendment would do is to broaden and strengthen our discussions with the petroleum industry and others in trying to consider these options. I don't know see any reason not to do that. If you all find in those discussions that there is a forward motion that you could make on RVP and not on the others, then that would be the report that we get back. Jeanelle, do you want to say anything further about that? MS. MOSLEY: Brock, just to express on the record. We do have a concern about adding to that list because there have been discussions regarding the RVP issue and, you know, we can support those discussions; however, there has been a lot of questions about RFG. You North Carolina officials just went through a very extensive public hearing last week where the petroleum industry opposed the RFG mandate and tried to promulgate an alternative of increasing such in the maintenance perhaps to give as great a benefit or more as RFG. But, we continue to, you know, want to be involved in the process. We would have preferred to have brought all of it together in the policy committee for greater detailed discussions, but if that is the SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### will of the governing body. MR. CARR: I think that's where it's going back to the policy committee. CHAIRMAN: Right. Well, I don't know that there's any objection to -- well, we are not taking a lot of votes today, and I may need a vote on the amendment. The sense of the group is to ask that the policy committee examine these issues of gasoline alternatives more broadly in working with the petroleum industry. I think that seems to be the pleasure of the group. MR. REHEIS: It works for me. CHAIRMAN: We'll move on. MR. NICHOLSON: The third one on the list is EMO 12/25, those were the combination of two original ones, Energy Star and the title at the adoption of Energy Star programs (voluntary pollution prevention) by residents of the SAMI region. And we'll just go through the description here. The action is that agencies, state and local agencies can become, or should become, perhaps, involved by joining one or more of the Energy Star programs and these are to include Green SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### Lights, Energy Star computers, Energy Star buildings. And these three programs address energy efficiency by reducing air emissions through the installation of energy efficient lighting, Green Lights; promoting computers and peripherals that can power-down to save energy when they're not being used, and then optimizing building systems including the heating and ventilation and air conditioning components. And then also as an encouragement of companies to participate in the Energy Star programs, also. In the write-up as it came out in the policy committee, there is not a particularly clear action or verb in there, so maybe that's a point of discussion, also. And I'm not sure I recall who the author is, and I don't know if the author of this is in the room, but if they are, perhaps they should speak up. MR. MILLER: EPA was. MR. NICHOLSON: Would you want to add something? MR. MILLER: No. MR. REHEIS: Okay. Well, EPA suggested this, didn't have anything more to discuss on it, is SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### there any comment or discussion around the table among the governing body. MR. NICHOLSON: I guess I would just add first, certainly I think this is another example of one where perhaps it is more concept than it is a suggest for implementation, we certainly entertain a directive to develop a more specific implementation plan or plans to actually carry this out. MR. MILLER: Well, I guess I would say something at that point, Brock. I mean, clearly EPA has been encouraging the Star programs. This was -- the whole concept of this EMO was to get that incentive beyond the agency out to state governments, and the private sectors are also encouraged to use energy efficient systems. To that degree, I guess by implication, the baton would pass to a wider audience of people encouraging the Green system. MR. REHEIS: Bruce, does EPA have economic analysis that's been prepared for the Energy Star programs, so that you could give figures, for example, for the average single-family residents in the SAMI region? What kinds of energy savings and associated costs of becoming an Energy SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### Star home there would be, so that that information could be used to fill out something in the cost-benefit portion of this. MR. MILLER: Yeah, we do have that kind of information, Harold, we'd be glad to share what we have with you. MR. REHEIS: Okay. Following up on something that Tom was concerned about if we -- to the extent that we can examine costs and benefits of these, there would be more comfort in saying, yeah let's adopt this one or let's not. And I know that on the Green Lights program, EPA has produced a lot of information on costs and benefits both in terms of savings of money and savings of energy, reduction of pollution. If there was some way to have some kind of table associated with this, show for every thousand households that convert, you've got this amount of savings and cost associated, that might be something that would add to this and give us the ability, you know, to give it a sound endorsement or make some specific decision. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, I would echo that. And I'll call on Rich in a minute, I hope he'd be able SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### to say some more about this to this program. This is a program that was conceived and originally proposed in the Republican administration, carried forward, and I understand enthusiastically endorsed in the Democratic administration. And the issue on cost and benefits here is that there are cost savings that's all benefits, the only issue is some up-front investment, but that is with a relatively, from what I understand, relatively short pay back time, and so this is essentially all upside; my understanding is, largely supported by power companies, it helps them manage loads, so this may well be something that truly is a near-term issue that be could supported without a great deal of further analysis. Rich did you want to --. MR. DAMBERG: I just wanted to make a couple points. One is that my understanding is that the program has started out with companies, you know, directed toward getting companies to convert everything to compact florescent or what not. And so there's been a lot of talk about residential and I'm not sure how much residential involvement -- MR. MILLER: I think that's right, Rich, I think our concept when we did this was more directed SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### toward government agencies and business entities converting over. I presume there's also probably some advantage residentially, and we'll be glad to get those figures, also. MR. DAMBERG: The other point I wanted to make is, you know, you may want to in approving this, clarify who would sort of draft up a letter that could go out from SAMI. That's kind of a -- MR. CARR: And also who it would go to. I think that was one of the comments on the EMO. CHAIRMAN: Joe. MR. HARWOOD: Joe Harwood for the North Carolina Citizens for Business and Industry, a couple things. I think we need to talk about this EMO. First of all, we're for it, we've been involved with Green Lights. Two things that bother me, one is the adoption of the Energy Star programs by residents of the SAMI region. I'm not sure how we would accomplish that, how that might be worded, and it just brings up the whole issue that I think as we go through all the EMOs, there's some word changes that probably need to be done to most of them, and the policy committee recognized that fact. We did not spend a lot time addressing this SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### version that is now before you. There was some revisions made, and I just want to put that on record because I think there are some questions and Rich raised a good one. A Green Lights' effort is really promoting the commercial-type activities and not so much residential, to the extent that we can address that. I do want to point out that the payback associated with Green Lights is becoming a little bit uncertain because of the disposal of florescent bulbs. I don't think that's an issue we want to talk about in this body here today, Mr. Chairman, but that does affect the effectiveness of the Green Lights program. In fact, my company and others have raised some concerns with EPA headquarters about the fact that the Green Lights' people need to be talking to the hazardous and solid waste folks, so we can get something resolved in terms of how to manage those bulbs and make them make sense economically because it really doesn't fit the formula under certain scenarios. So I just put that on the table. To that extent, you know, we have no problem with the EMO, SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### but there are some potential challenges out there and so forth. CHAIRMAN: I think you raised a good point about the way the title is worded because it might suggest that we're out promoting some regulatory effort to make that happen. What I understand it calls for here would be an endorsement by SAMI and its member states of the program, so that we're adding our voices to EPAs and your company and others to say, "folks this is a good thing, it's a win/win, people ought to know about it, and we encourage you to do it." And there may be some need for the information that Harold described before the governing body acts, so that we would have -- there's lots of material on the program that shows, if that's the case, that it's a win/win, and the people would feel comfortable in making that endorsement, nonregulatory promotional of what has been broadly accepted as a win/win strategy. MR. MILLER: What we'll do before Greenville is try to get both the economic information out that we can on the savings as well as where we're at on the issue that Joe talked about in terms of trying to coordinate the disposal of the SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### lighting that's replaced. CHAIRMAN: There is an issue that I think we need to put on the table on this, and that is, as I said before, the only cost associated with this program is some up-front capital investment which has a pretty quick payoff for recovery rate. For those of us in state government; that is, nevertheless an insurmountable obstacle. And I have no problem with, and I don't know that this is implied in this EMO, I have no problem with our department committing to promoting North Carolina's participation in these programs, but I can't guarantee that I can deliver that. And we've already worked to that effect, and up to this point, have had a hard time getting -- we just faced the problem that other governmental entities do, you can't get your legislature to spend money now that will save them a lot of money in the future. Our projections at the state level is that we can save 30 million dollars a year, 30 million dollars a year in energy efficiency investments, but we don't have the capital money to make those up-front investments to realize those savings. I hope eventually we'll persuade people SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### that they're being penny-wise and pound foolish. I also have no problem recognizing that situation in promoting the program more generally to the private sector where people don't face what I think is a really counterproductive financial constraint. MR. MILLER: We have some of the same problems obviously on the federal side. We are making progress when new buildings come in, we now get that examination to be done; and when things are remodeled, we get them fixed, sometimes we get them to switch over, sometimes we don't. The point is that we seem to be like the lone ranger to a degree being the sponsors of this and the whole idea of the EMO is just to broaden that sponsorship. CHAIRMAN: There seems to be general support for an EMO that would promote the Energy Star program in the SAMI region. Before we act finally on that in Greenville, we'll have a good bit of additional information on the program made available to the members of the governing body. MR. CARR: Does the body want to give any suggestion as to who the endorsement might be circulated to? Bruce do you have a concept of who SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### this goes to? MR. MILLER: I mean, quite candidly, what we were hoping for is that in addition to us beating down the doors of commercial establishments on switching over, the states would be directing some effort to doing that. And that was more than just a letter, it was obviously maybe a little staff time, too, the same as we're doing. MS. ANDREWS: I would think that the PAC could develop some materials, too, that we could use in education efforts. CHAIRMAN: My experience and, Joe, I'd be interested to know what it looks like from the power company's point of view, but if you can get this information in the hands of private companies to know about the program, you're often a hero. And the challenge really is having more effort to get the word out. I mean, this is something that private sector companies are dying to know about. MS. CABOT-SMETHURST: I think Diana mentioned the PAC and I can certainly see a supportive role that we can play in working both EPA and the states and others. So I suggest that we, the PAC, assist the policy committee, EPA, and the SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### others in working out a strategy. CHAIRMAN: Let's take a ten-minute break. (RECESS TAKEN). CHAIRMAN: All right. Here we go folks. Next item is EMO 51/52 on energy conservation. MR. NICHOLSON: Let me go over the description. When practical and to the extent that it does not interfere with building operation and/or safety, turn off office lights, computers, heating and air conditioning, and nonessential equipment; nights, weekends, or whenever it is not needed for an extended period. The action or recommendations would not be made to states per se, but would be a recommendation for internal SAMI action as this EMO is written with the idea that the PAC would develop a SAMI communications document that describes the actions that can be taken related to turning off and relating these actions in a general way to reduce electricity generation and reduced emissions. Some examples would also be included that relayed hours of operation of lights, for example, to pounds of emissions of NOx and SO2. The PAC could then target an audience for the document and send it directly to SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### that audience as an educational document. Now, I might add that even though we didn't have this action description on the previous EMO, I think the suggestion was made, and I think it probably will fit very well there, also, as kind of a follow up to that. In essence, the action is a document that the PAC, that would be formed of output from SAMI on this EMO, and again, Bruce, was this your committee? MR. MILLER: This was not ours. MR. NICHOLSON: I don't have the names of who originated it. Please speak up if you're the person. MR. STROBEN: Bob Tate is the original author. CHAIRMAN: Comments on this EMO. Joe, the handout note, there were some industry concerns about this. I assume they were relatively minor. As I understand this is -- what is called for here is for our PAC to develop a piece that promotes turning off lights and conserving energy. MR. HARWOOD: Yeah, there was some discussion on this. I think this was one of those that started out with the thought that just do the SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### common sense thing that makes sense. There was some discussion about the fact that actually some buildings were still heated with regard to the lighting system or other activities, and for safety reasons, it might not be appropriate to turn off lights in certain areas. And I think that was part of the discussion. Those of you on the policy committee can help me pick out some other reasons. John Jansen, do you remember some other discussions on this? MR. JANSEN: Actually, the industry comments, the latest sets, were just in response to Allan's request for why there's some concerns. There really aren't any concerns about this. It's a matter of emphasizing that it's a voluntary thing, it's to be done when it's cost effective, that sort of thing. It was more to say that the discussion that was supposed to be included in all of these things was not as fully flushed out as it could have been. This one, we really don't have any strong reservations about it. MR. HOPKINS: Mr. Chairman, it occurs to me that the reference to SAMI educating the public SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### and promoting participation and so forth, I obviously, I can't speak for the states here, I can speak only for my state. We really have the resources to educate the public ourselves. And I just think it would be a waste of the resources of this organization to spend a great deal of money, you know, cranking out documents and pamphlets and brochures and whatever the idea is here, when the states can do this themselves. CHAIRMAN: Lucy. MS. CABOT-SMETHURST: Steve, I think that maybe what would help this, I agree with Tom, that there's probably been a great deal of information turned out by EPA and the states. I think maybe the way you ought to put this one together is with the words, develop a communications strategy, which would involve states, EPA, et cetera, using probably existing material and certainly reviewing it and working through the states. So I would emphasize the strategic part and probably the communication part is fairly well documented. CHAIRMAN: I think that's a good point, we don't have a lot of dollars around for developing literature and pamphlets and that sort of thing. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### And while there is some appeal in having SAMI involved as an organization endorsing these measures, frankly, each of our states in our individual capacity are likely to be more effective publicly, than know who SAMI is, and they're more interested in knowing that I think their state government supports the private sector and EPA and other efforts to promote conservation. That does leave me with some unresolved questions as to exactly what this would call on us to do, but I think there's broad support for this and that's something that can be worked from between now and the next meeting. MS. ANDREWS: Mr. Chairman, my division of energy did express concern with, again, wordsmithing. The sense that the SAMI recommendation would not involve the states and our division of energy was very much interested in being involved, wants to be involved. And I think Lucy's words are exactly what SAMI should do because I think SAMI would give us the impetus to go forward with that. So it's another one of those things that obviously it's a good thing to do, but without SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### somebody really taking the lead and giving us the impetus to do it, it's one of those things that just doesn't get done. MR. CARR: I'd like to echo that in that SAMI is a regional body and its focus on air pollution and issues in regional air pollutions, and it does add to have SAMI's name and SAMI's regional body endorsing in concept, in addition, and along with the states. CHAIRMAN: But I assume you don't disagree on the issue of resources in that what's called for is not development of new written materials by SAMI for distribution. MR. CARR: Not unless necessary, no. CHAIRMAN: Okay. All right. Well, I think we have a pretty general consensus on this concept. Any further discussion on this item? MS. ANDREWS: There is, by the way, considerable available data that speaks to the benefits of energy conservation. CHAIRMAN: One of the things that we might do is use this as a means of sharing that data among the states because probably each one of us has reinvented this wheel, and it would be help to have SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### some similar information. I think it's unlikely that what we're doing in terms of generic conservation is being promoted to the public in light of its benefits for air quality in the Southern Appalachians. So that may be something that we can introduce into the materials that we're using in our respective states. MR. PHILLIPS: Randy Phillips, U.S. Forest Service. I was just going to comment, Mr. Chairman, that the best role probably for SAMI to play in this is one of facilitator in this EMO, to really be a facilitator between the states, I think that's what other people have said. CHAIRMAN: Good. MR. PHILLIPS: I think that's a good role. CHAIRMAN: All right. Next item, EMO 64, Transmission and Distribution System Upgrades. MR. NICHOLSON: Without describing some of the background, I'll just go right to the second paragraph. SAMI would or should encourage utilities to consider the reduction in line losses in the evaluation of their planned transmission and distribution projects. As I understand the recommendation plan is SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### not necessarily retrofit in the intermediate term. There's a note that no TOC evaluation is needed. Since there are no regulations associated with this EMO, there is no reason to involve states in its implementation. A SAMI recommendation of this EMO would not be made to the states, it would be a recommendation for internal SAMI action. Possible method for implementation of this EMO is to have the PAC develop a SAMI communication document which describes a recommended action and relates to the action in the general way to reduce emissions. The PAC could then send the document to each utility in the SAMI region. Since this EMO, like the previous one, is voluntary in nature, there are no enforceability issues. Joe, I think this was yours as I recall from Duke Power. MR. HARWOOD: I think you summed it up pretty well. It's a situation where, if you're building a new line or retrofitting an existing line that needs to just look at that as part of the process and to make it as efficient as you possibly can. MR. HOPKINS: Is this something that's routinely done? SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### MR. HARWOOD: Yeah, I would think so. But, I mean, you know, it's the kind of thing where, again, as Diana pointed out, perhaps you don't necessarily think about it unless, you know, everybody brought it to your attention. I think it's the kind of thing we just lay on the table as a discussion piece for -- this is something that we're looking at every possible angle we can to be as efficient as we can and minimize emission. CHAIRMAN: And the idea is that a letter would go out from SAMI, from the governing body, to the utilities encouraging this type of consideration. I guess one question I have about that is, and you can help me with it, if this is going to go to say CEO's of utilities as an initial contact from SAMI. And with this very specific recommendation, is it going to seem somewhat trivialized in the overall scheme of things. MR. HARWOOD: To remind the governing body, the policy committee opened the flood gates and said for everyone to submit anything that they could define as an EMO. Some of them are massive, some of them were common sense, some of them were obvious. And I think what you got is a list of SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### those. This is one of those I think, Tom is asking, the kind of thing we would do anyway, but it's the kind of thing this organization would recognize as something that could be done or should be thought about when we're, you know, addressing transmission upgrades or new transmission facilities in the region. To that extent, you know, it's kind of, you know, you probably already know this, and I don't if you're heading to costs of dollars and things, it may not be the most efficient ways to prepare something to send to people who are already thinking about that. MS. ANDREWS: Joe, would you involve the public service commissions in the states, in this, making them aware that this is something they ought to lead their utilities to do or? MR. HARWOOD: I can't speak for other states, but in the North Carolina Facilities Commission we have a piece of legislation that is directly involved with transmission line sighting activities, which include in the cost of it the whole process the actual transmission cost, and we're obviously asked to be as efficient as we SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### possibly in its effectiveness. So, yes, in that case, I can't speak for other states. CHAIRMAN: Lucy. MS. CABOT-SMETHURST: Again, I think this is very worthwhile, and I take this one step further and ask the TOC perhaps to go beyond just drafting a letter, but to looking at strategy recognition. If utilities are doing this sort of thing, then recognition is part of the thing because we are trying to communicate to the public that SAMI as a whole is working on air quality issues. And this is one of those maybe simplistic things, but as a regional organization, it should have a lot of impact. So what I would like to suggest is that we take it one step further than a letter, the utilities will have to help draft because it will be technical, but to look at something that is more in a way of a recognition program, these kinds of energy, air savings initiatives. CHAIRMAN: What do we do? That sounds like a maybe a very good idea, but a new idea. MS. CABOT-SMETHURST: A new idea. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### MS. CABOT-SMETHURST: We had worded it enough to say that we'd look at it and I'm not asking you to accept it. We'll bring it back to you and say this is a potential recognition program, we'd like to move on it, what is your thought. It's to investigate a recognition program. CHAIRMAN: Well, I just view that as like I said, sort of a good idea, but a rather different idea from what's proposed here, and one that I'd like to see develop further before it comes to us. MS. CABOT-SMETHURST: Oh, absolutely. CHAIRMAN: That may be something the PAC may want to charge and bring it back to us. Well, I'm struggling on this one because I'm thinking about a letter going out over my signature to the CEO's of a bunch of utilities in which I'm going to tell them about SAMI and all that we're doing and all of the issues that are in play. And then say, by the way, I think you need to focus on transmission and distribution upgrades. You all can help me out. I don't mean to be putting cold water on it, but -- MR. NICHOLSON: One thought is there are a couple of other measures, even one other measure, a SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### couple others that could perhaps could be in a package, also. I'm not sure of that if that's what Lucy was talking about. CHAIRMAN: If we included the other two items that we just dealt with in terms of energy conversation, talk about the longer term process of SAMI that we're going to be looking at EMOs, but let them know that in the near-term, we are interested in working with them on what are obviously win/win strategies that they are actively involved in. I'm more comfortable with that. I guess we have got one more in this category. MR. REHEIS: Maybe this one we could change entirely to one of recognition. If you're uncomfortable writing that kind of letter to the CEO's of the power companies, I can appreciate what you're saying. They are probably more ahead than most other folks in considering things like that. We can let them know that we want to appraise them in their doing this, and that we will. MR. HOPKINS: And you also need to include in that letter the federal land managers have endorsed this and would very much appreciate it and we'll go easier on their next program. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion of this item. My intention is to try to convert this to the initiation of contact with utilities on the subject of SAMI's interest in energy conservation and efficiency measures, more broadly. David. MR. CARR: I think there is variability amongst the utilities in the region. All lot of them are involved in SAMI, some of them are not. I wouldn't want to move just to Harold's recognition concept, but endorsement, and if you you're doing it, we appreciate it. CHAIRMAN: I think a more broadly stated initiation of contact at a high level to all of the utilities so they're aware of SAMI, aware of the general direction of where we're going, and aware of our near-term effort in supporting their energy conservation efforts, working with them to promote Green Star, Green Lights in other conservation measures, I think would be very timely. MR. JOY: Steve, I don't know that I have a problem with the direction that we're talking about here with utilities because most of the utilities in this region are aware of SAMI and what it's about. Just a future thought or future issue SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### for us to discuss on this communication piece -- CHAIRMAN: Uh-huh. MR. JOY: -- is how do we communicate things of this nature back to the industries within a given state, be it an industry that may or may not be aware of what SAMI is or what's going on, we do need to be making the effort to try to make them aware of that. But I guess I have some sensitivity to how they get that letter or that information relative to SAMI. Should it come from yourself as Chairman of North Carolina going to the facilities in South Carolina? Should it have some kind of cover letter or some other type issue from the South Carolina governing body rep or communication more or less to introduce it. So that whole communication strategy as it relates to individual EMOs or other things that we come out with I think does need to be discussed by someone. CHAIRMAN: Let's ask the PAC to put that on its agenda. MS. CABOT-SMETHURST: Absolutely, it's already on there. I quite agree with you, Jim. I think strategically that cutting the home folks, SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### part of that makes a lot of sense. But let us come back with a recommendation on that. CHAIRMAN: EMO 65 energy efficient audits. MR. NICHOLSON: Description, SAMI should encourage electric utilities to perform energy efficiency audits of their facilities, and when requested to do so, perform audits of customer facilities to perform energy efficiency -- well, there's a typo in my version. I'm not sure what -- I'm working off an older one. Basically it's to encourage utilities to provide -- to perform energy audits of their facilities and also their customers when requested. And again, there are no regulations associated with this EMO. I suggest that we follow the same route as the previous one with the PAC, and perhaps it might be included in the same package or communication package. Joe was this yours? MR. CARR: I think it was Joe. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think unless I'm missing something we can just roll this into what we've just been talking about, and it can be part of that communication. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### MR. HOPKINS: I have a question of Joe. I was under the impression we already had energy audits. Do you guys charge for that to go in and look at a corporate company? I thought that you had this, you know, already. MR. JOY: Well, particularly for facilities that -- I think for commercial facilities, we would charge a fee for that, but that's the request of the customer. Certainly that the benefits there are, that they understand where their opportunities are to become more efficient. In the residential situation, we have at Duke, typically, new home construction and/or we'll come and evaluate your home for ways to reduce your electrical. And if you'll do certain things to upgrade your home, then we have special rates. So this is not a regulatory program by any means, the thing primarily is the customer is trying to save money. I think rolled into the package that the letter might read as, you know, that SAMI has looked at a number of programs, we encourage you those of who are doing it, you know, we thank you for that. Those of you who aren't doing it, you might want to SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### consider doing it. It's the overall collective effort will make a difference on emissions. I think some technical glitches, if you will, in the write-ups that appear here. It says, there are a quantity of changes, no direct change in man-induced emissions will occur. And then it says in the advantages/disadvantages, it says, that the lower energy costs and lower air emissions. If I read this correctly, there's a little bit of a different approach there. I think this is the kind of stuff that ought to be cleaned up. And I think overall, if you have a more efficient system, you're going to collectively have perhaps even less emission. But those are things we got to talk about, but I think that's, you know, can be a part of that package that you discussed earlier, Mr. Chairman. MR. CARR: Just one thing about the language there, you have reductions, if you identify things that will result in reductions of emissions. So I think those two paragraphs are accurate and consistent. MS. ANDREWS: Two things. One is my energy folks were uncomfortable with the statement SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### about available data being unknown. They felt there was data out there. The second came to mind while we were talking about Duke and the big power companies, what about the smaller cooperatives. Those folks don't have a lot of the stuff that a Duke Power would have. Those folks may not be concerned about their transmission lines. Where did we go with the smaller cooperatives? MR. HARWOOD: I can't speak for all of them, but certainly some of the ones that we interface with -- in fact, I just got a brochure in the mail the other day that they sent out Electrocity (phonetic), which is one of our municipal organizations, just sent out a three-page, three-fold brochure on ways to lower your power costs. So I don't know -- I think perhaps just like the rest of the scheme, some of them involved, some of them aren't. But perhaps a letter from someone in the state level would involve others that aren't involved now. I guess, perhaps, that's a positive aspect of that. If they don't do anything that's --. MS. ANDREWS: Working through a utilities SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### exchange type group? MR. HARWOOD: Our experience has been the customers are pretty much aware of energy costs. They're not pretty much, they're very aware of energy costs, and they're very aware of what it costs them to power and they're looking at ways to make themselves available for various rates or whatever. So customers usually spend an inordinate amount of time looking at what those costs are. They drive a lot of these programs. It's good. CHAIRMAN: If there's no further discussion of 65, I'd like to suggest that we skip to the last two on this list, which also relate to energy efficiency, and deal with those while were on this subject. The first one is the one that begins with EMO 16 and some others that have been combined into that. MR. NICHOLSON: Under description, SAMI will show support for public education programs in energy conservation and efficiency by collecting information on existing programs and using these as appropriate and promotional, materials, presentations, and et cetera. This effort will be coordinated with the PAC. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### The second set 30, 59, and 63 promote energy efficiency and conservation with private and public decision makers. SAMI should obtain a listing of existing voluntary energy conservation and efficiency programs available to the private (industrial and business) and public sectors. And this listing would be used to further educate private and public decision makers about the effects of voluntary actions and decisions on air quality in the SAMI region. There's several examples here. And again, the contemplation is that the PAC would be the primary vehicle to develop a mechanism to get this information to decision makers much like some of the earlier efforts. I don't know if anyone else or Lucy may want to. CHAIRMAN: Any comments, Lucy? We're making work for you. MS. CABOT-SMETHURST: I think that this can definitely be woven in with some of the stuff we've done before. And again, I think the collection of information and developing a strategy. I really think strategy is a very key word in all of this. SAMI doesn't have the SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### resources to do direct mail, so we are going to have to rely on states and feds and industry and so on, obviously, with strategies here. CHAIRMAN: One of the things that is emerging from this discussion is, I think a recognition that we can make considerable progress toward the goals of SAMI through the promotion of nonregulatory energy conservation efficiency strategies, with the goal of having those types of strategies implemented well beyond the rate at which they're being implemented today. And, Joe, I don't know if -- or, John, if the industry has any sense about where we are in terms of emissions reductions that are realized as a result of a range of these activities of where we are now and a goal of where we would like to be that would, you know, begin to quantify this, so it's not all of this kind of just loosely pushing different promotional strategies, but where we could really begin to say over the life of SAMI that these measures are currently being implemented at rate X, and if we could get it to rate Y voluntarily through promotion of these strategies, we're going to see this type of emission reduction with these SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### benefits. In other words, my excitement would really increase about this whole package of measures, if at some point in the process, we're able to quantify the gains a little better, at least set a goal. If you've got five percent of business doing something, and if we can really get out there with an aggressive strategy of the states, and when you get to 20 percent of the businesses doing something, here's what it's going to do for air quality. Is that a reasonable thing to think about? I'm not talking about in the near-term, but to get a little more quantification to what this is all about. MR. JANSEN: I'll respond since you mentioned me. It's hard for me to respond because that's not part of the business that I'm in, so I cannot -- all I can do is say we can go back and ask people who might be involved in measuring these kinds of activities, and see if there's a way to get a handle of that. I have no idea. You may have better idea. CHAIRMAN: My question arises from this concern in a time when we think a lot about the performance of governmental efforts and measurement SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### of outcomes. If we believe that this is important, I'd like to know at some point that we accomplished something, that we had some goal in this area of energy conservation and efficiency, that we adopted some strategies to achieve that goal, and that we succeeded or failed. And to know something about what that means in terms of air quality improvements. David. MR. CARR: Well, the policy committee has considered some, what now appear to be longer-term EMOs, one of which would be still just an endorsing situation, but EMO No. 1 was to endorse state utility commissions providing incentives to utilities to implement energy efficiency programs, cost-effective energy efficient programs. So there are some maybe bigger picture things that the policy committee may visit and there may be other things that can be done to look at it as a whole. CHAIRMAN: Well, my point is really one of quantification of measurement of goal setting accountability. If we look at a measurement, a recommendation, of some policy on revapor pressure or some policy on NOx burners or any of those sorts SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### of things, you're going to be able to say, if we do this, here is what we think is going to be accomplished in terms of air quality improvements. And at some point in the process I'd like to have some goals related to energy conservation. First of all, that we're not just out there saying this is a good thing and have no way of knowing whether anybody listens to us or changes their behavior in any way, but that we had some goals that are measurable, and that ultimately that are related to the air quality outcomes. I don't know where to refer that concern. I'm not expecting it would be addressed at this step of the process, but I would like for one of our committees to explore that. I don't know if the policy committee is an appropriate place to do that. MR. NICHOLSON: We certainly should entertain the question and see what we can come up with. CHAIRMAN: Is the request clearly enough stated for the policy committee to pursue it? MR. CARR: Or we can get back to you? CHAIRMAN: Okay, you know where to find me. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### MR. CARR: A goal relating to energy conservation. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. What we're trying to achieve in a measurable way. MR. MORTON: One other comment, we're getting to the end of the energy conversation set here it looks like. I would ask that the letter that's developed for going to the utilities at least be copied if not sent possibly to the Public Service Commissions, State Energy offices, so that they know what SAMI is, that SAMI is encouraging energy conservation, and also maybe indicating that SAMI is going to look at -- try to develop a goal for energy conservation sort of a bigger picture. These are the near-term voluntary, you know, if you can you do this, but we'll be looking at a bigger picture on energy conservation. CHAIRMAN: I think that's a good suggestion. MR. NICHOLSON: All right. CHAIRMAN: And I don't know who is retrieving lunch, but I'm advised that's it's ready whenever we want to send somebody to do that. MS. COX: Alan was getting someone to do SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### that. CHAIRMAN: I don't know if he got that message, you might want to check. MR. NICHOLSON: 86 Air quality and --. MR. REHEIS: Can we take up a vote for the last two and that discussion that we just concluded? CHAIRMAN: I believe so. MR. REHEIS: Okay. MR. NICHOLSON: I believe so. 86 air quality and land use planning. It's recommended to include -- the inclusion of air quality considerations in local land use plans and recommend development of land use plans with consideration for air quality where plans do not exist. I have a -- I hope I'm not working off an actually revised one. I have strongly recommended localities that adhere to the plans, maybe I better look at the latest one. I thought I was looking off a good copy here. Governing body of SAMI should recommend that local land use land commissions and localities lacking land use plans, develop plans with full consideration for air quality concerns. Most importantly, when plans are developed, they need to SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### be adhered to for full realization of the benefits. The PAC would gather information from existing planning documents to develop a summary information document for disseminating this information. Is that what you have on your copy? CHAIRMAN: Yeah. MR. NICHOLSON: Okay. The EMO addresses emission reduction by recommending that future development and renovation of communities be done in a fashion which ultimately reduces energy consumption. CHAIRMAN: All right. MR. NICHOLSON: Action is just as another package. CHAIRMAN: It struck me as more than that. It struck me as a substitute recommendation. Discussion on this EMO. Well, I might just start the discussion by saying that a good way to get shot in the mountains of North Carolina is to talk about land use planning. MR. REHEIS: What about the mountains in Georgia? MR. HOPKINS: That's what why I think SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### there wasn't a lot of discussion about this. MR. REHEIS: I think that something that we ought to be contemplating seriously between now and the meeting in Greenville, Steve, is a point you made early on in this discussion on EMOs and; that is, we ought to think hard about the meaning of the vote and anything that any of us voting members of the governing body vote on, I think we ought to be willing to stand behind and promote in our states. And we've got a land use planning process that operates in Georgia, some places it works well, and some places it's as if it weren't there at all. And I expect that that's going to continue to be the case. That land use planning process also doesn't fall within my purview. I can have a little bit of effect on it around the edges, but this is one that, unless we can, I think show some really clear benefit from this kind of activity or projection clear benefit from this kind of activity, that local governments could relate to, then we're whistling in the wind thinking anything is going to happen, if we adopt this, and then expect each of the members of SAMI to go out and promote it. MR. CARR: The focus seems to be on rural SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### counties that maybe doesn't have a land use plan now, but there are other factors involved here, Knoxville, Chattanooga; Chattanooga is doing some things that are very innovative in this regard, and there should be a role for SAMI to play in encouraging planning, particularly in the smaller cities or towns that clearly have some potential to produce ozone. In effect, the resources that we're concerned about, I don't see any reason why SAMI can't speak and encourage in that regard. CHAIRMAN: I have no problem with endorsing the idea or recommendation that where land use land planning is being carried out, that air quality be considerations to be considered as part of that planning effort. As a recommendation, not that we're calling for a regulation that mandates that, but that we, SAMI, would say, you folks in Knoxville you're doing land use planning, please think about air quality, here are some things that you should be aware of in terms of land use. I will tell you that where we have land use planning, my guess is, that that doesn't currently occur to any significant extent, and that it might well be beneficial, but we'd be talking SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### about is not a regulatory mandate, but a recommendation or a request to planning entities to think about air quality impacts. I'm comfortable in supporting that. MR. JOY: Steve, I guess I'd like to echo a little bit Harold's comments. I think it is one thing if we're saying we're endorsing the concept, it's a completely different thing to be continuously going out there and saying you've got to do this, where is your land use planning. And what I hear some of us saying around the table is we may can take that initial step, but we're not sure it is our role as current state environmental commissioners to go out and continue to beat up those that are not doing it or get beat up in return. So I think Harold's comments, very seriously, that we probably need to factor that in before we vote and understand what we're actually voting on this particular one. CHAIRMAN: Well, I can say for North Carolina that I cannot endorse any new land use planning requirements. As I said before, I'd be interested in the sense of the group to where you are on this issue of a recommendation coming from SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### this governing body to local governments and other entities that are involved in land use planning that recommend to them that air quality considerations be considered. And perhaps there's information that we can collect that we would specifically share with them for that purpose. MR. HOPKINS: I think developers are also open to this and are aware of not just air quality concerns, but things like storm water run off and so forth. We have a new community that's being developed. It's a commuter community in the D.C. suburbs that is starting to develop and they have plugged into all of their planning efforts environmental concerns. In fact, it's going to be probably a model community. They have narrow streets with lots of curbs. There is not going to be any fast driving through there, speed bumps, all this sort of thing. I think we can encourage developers to take environmental issues to heart when they're developing these properties. Not just look at it from the governmental command and control land use planning, but to encourage developers to be good stewards of the environment. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### CHAIRMAN: I do think, as I said before, I think this is an important issue to get on the screen because I don't think air quality has been much of a consideration, it's been more natural areas and water quality and those sorts of things. I think it's quite important if we can help to inject it into the debate in a nonregulatory way. MS. KEMP: Two ways that this might be done is that should the governing body choose to accept this would be perhaps through a grant to a landscape design school with a university for some type of study on air quality because I know that this -- many of these schools have done the storm water type of study that you're talking about. Sometimes these might be implemented in planning, and that would also get the information out to some of the publications and landscape planners. Another way might be through the state's cooperative extension service. For example, the south has had to deal with droughts so much in the last few years and zero scaping. Planting of plants that require little water has been a strong push through the cooperative extension service on their gardening and their planning programs. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### So it may be at the same time performing pollution control, things might be implemented through some of the cooperative extension agencies. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think those are good thoughts. And again, as we have discussed in some of the other areas that SAMI can really add a lot of value if we, as a group of states are coming together and helping to promote and disseminate these ideas that may otherwise not be -- people may not be aware of and may not act on, and by sharing information and strategizing together, I think we could have a significant impact. MR. REHEIS: Steve, I think your suggestion of promoting consideration of air issues in the communities that are doing land use planning who actively do it, is a good idea. Those are the ones that are going to be more likely to be more receptive and think about it and do it, if they know what to do. And so encouraging those that are doing it, to do it, and providing them with some information on what kinds of things ought to be done, what kinds of things ought to be considered, I'd say is an appropriate step. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### MR. CARR: I would add to that that SAMI can provide information about the impacts of air pollution on a resource that we're concerned about and that may provide some incentive to look at it more closely, you know, we've got a regional body doing it and that's impressive, but that is the advantage of having SAMI. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Harold has now formulated my suggestion on this. Is that a concept a general approval? Okay. We'll move on. The next item is very much related and we may want to think about rolling these two -- an aspect of it is very closely related. MR. NICHOLSON: SAMI urges all states to preserve trees and forest to plant and maintain trees urban and suburban areas, and to plant and maintain trees along roads and highways. This governing body of SAMI would send a letter of support of these types of programs to state planning organizations, et cetera. And then without getting into all the detail, there would certainly be an encouragement of tree preservation and planning. And the PAC could gather existing information to be available for the public to use. And I guess as SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### Steve just suggested, it might make sense to roll it in. CHAIRMAN: Tom, do you have a thought on this? MR. HOPKINS: I feel like I need speak up for North Carolina. We're not talking about inferring from this that we're not going to have timber in operations are we? CHAIRMAN: Certainly not and it does -- the way that title is phrased, it urges states to preserve existing trees and forests, I think it could be read that way by some, and we need to be careful not to suggest that. We have had significant growth in forested acres in our state over the last couple of decades in the face of, or with the presence of, a very active and productive forest products industry. So I'm not exactly sure what the gist of this. The piece of it relating to tree planning in urban areas, I think, is very much amenable to including in the prior one. I don't know if there's more than we need to do beyond that. If this implies endorsing broader tree planning efforts -- for example, we have an active program in our state SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### of reforestation of timber and acres. And that's, you know, again a very positive program and I have no problem endorsing that. That's different from the urban land use tree preservation issue. So I guess, I might suggest that the urban tree planning be included in the prior one and that this EMO speak to promotion and support of the latter part voluntary tree preservation and planning efforts. I'm open to your suggestions on that. MR. REHEIS: I think we need to keep laying the data on this that would suggest that SAMI or its members are taking a position on the issue of timbering. We've got enough problems and enough controversies to support that we are involved in or going to be involved without taking that one on, too. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll give you some of my controversies. CHAIRMAN: Randy, you should help us on this. I view it, and I think about it how it works in our state, the issue of urban land use and tree planning and preservation is really a very different ball game set of players than the reforestation, replanning effort. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### MR. PHILLIPS: It would seem to me just a recognition that the importance of trees to our environment would suffice. CHAIRMAN: We have a program in our state that is in place that are actively involved in reforestation, promoting it, and to some extent financing it. As far as I know, that's widely viewed as a very positive thing, and having SAMI endorse those efforts would be a boon to us. And I don't think it has any downside. I don't know if you had similar -- I apologize for my ignorance, I don't know -- MR. PHILLIPS: Well, we have to reforest our acres. CHAIRMAN: So it wouldn't have much impact on what you do, you're going to do it anyway. MR. MILLER: I do have a concern with the term preserving trees. Some people might take that to mean that we shouldn't cut any trees or manage trees or manage forests. CHAIRMAN: I guess, my point from the national forest service perspective, you're required to reforest anyway, so that a recommendation speaking to your efforts really doesn't have -- no SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### need to tell you to do that, you're going to do it anyway. MR. MILLER: Right. CHAIRMAN: I don't know what the experience of other states is or whether -- MR. GRUSNICK: I understand, you know, planting trees and shrubs in urban areas conserves energy and reduces remissions. I guess it's a little fuzzy to me. I like to have forest and everything, too, how that has a direct impact on the mission of SAMI, which is to enhance to air quality. CHAIRMAN: Is there a question back there? MS. CABOT-SMETHURST: Yeah, I have a comment about the PAC's involvement in both this one and the previous this one. There's a resource question that springs up to do with the gathering of the information which speaks of somebody really going around and gathering the appropriate information for both of these EMOs. We don't have those kind of resources, Steve. What we do -- what we can do, of course, is to come up with a strategies of communication. Gathering the resources are somewhat of the more technical nature SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### that we need to figure out. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, it's not my expectation that the PAC is going to have to figure out all this by yourself. I think that's a fair question. MS. CABOT-SMETHURST: I just needed to put that on the record. I mean, if Harold wants to give me some of his stuff. MR. REHEIS: Sure, Lucy. CHAIRMAN: Well, let throw this out as a strong -- MR. REHEIS: We have so many foresters in EPD. CHAIRMAN: In light of Richard's comment, my suggestion is, that we take the component of this relating to urban and suburban preplanning and incorporate it into the prior EMO. MR. REHEIS: That's fine. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion or --. MR. HOPKINS: I just want to mention something that some of you might find of interest. We have a pilot project that we're embarking on in Virginia involving capping old abandon landfills. And as it turns out, popular trees love leach, but we are experimenting with this. And popular trees SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### just thrive on this runoff from these landfills. So we're looking at that from a cost benefit standpoint, you know, some of these landfills to bring to closure, you're looking at millions, and millions of dollars as opposed to thousands. I mean, you can cut these poplar trees, sell them, and replant, all this sort of thing. You might check with me if you have some hazardous runoff in your state. CHAIRMAN: All right. I think we've worked that one over pretty well. Let's move on to EMO 89. We've got two more just to kind of give you an incentive to get to the finish line and we'll break for lunch. MR. NICHOLSON: This one is improved federal land manager and determining authority dialogue. The governing body will write a letter, permitting authorities in the SAMI region, encouraging them to involve the affected federal land manager in the permitting of any new major emitting source for major modification of an existing source. Included in the dialogue between permitting authority the permit applicant and the SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### federal land manager would be: Notification of the federal land manager within 30 days of the receipt of any advance notification of a PSD, Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit application which proposes to construct within 100 kilometers of a Class I area, or any other large sources which the permitting authority feels may impact a Class I area, and also a notification of the opportunity to participate in pre-application meetings for such sources. And to facilitate early federal land manager public involvement for projects possibly impacting the Class I areas, permitting authorities would ask the project applicants to prepare a one-page fact sheet containing key information about the project, including name and type of source, its location, proximity to Class I areas, and proposed emission rates of air pollutants by the source. This fact sheet will be forwarded to any affected federal land manager at the earliest possible time and placed on electronic databases such as the BACT/LAER Clearinghouse or EPA's Bulletin Board System. Then annually, or more frequent, SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### presentation by the permitting authority to the federal land manager (made available to public upon request) of all permitting activity within the area of concern surrounding the Class I area. Included would be the changes in emissions, enforcement actions, State Implementation Plan, (SIP), ambient monitoring data, increment tracking, and et cetera. And then the annual or more frequent presentation by the federal land manager of issues of concern. And let me say I think that's the essence of the action items. Maybe I'll stop there and let anybody else comment on other aspects. It's a fairly specific and specified EMO. MS. ANDREWS: I think it's overly specific. There is concern expressed from my folks that it goes beyond the regulatory requirements, and we would have problems supporting some of those items. CHAIRMAN: Richard. MR. GRUSNICK: I guess the concern I have had when I went through this, is it went into such a level of detail, I mean, down to the point of talking about placing it on a BACT/LAER SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### Clearinghouse briefcase bulletin board system. And I certainly recognize that there is a need to coordinate with the federal land managers, and if I'm doing my job when I'm processing an application, I'm going to make sure that if I ultimately say, yes, it looks like a permit can be issued, I don't want a last minute hammer by the federal land manager to come down and do that. So it's in my best interest to have this level of coordination and/or have a level of coordination where nobody gets surprised in the end. But I do -- different states do things a little bit differently. I think the level of specificity is too presumptuous for SAMI to adopt. I certainly would not have a problem with one that encourages states to coordinate with federal land managers with memorandums of agreement. It's not a major concern for us. CHAIRMAN: Let's hear from our land managers over here. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not hung up on the level of specificity. I think what we would like to see happen is early on dialogue. And each project is probably going to require some different kinds of SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### information. I think that early dialogue benefits everyone. MS. KIMBALL: I'd like to endorse what Randy just said that the level of specificity in the EMO is less important than the goal and focus which is to improve the dialogue. We signed yesterday a memorandum of understanding with the state of Tennessee similar to our MOU with Virginia, and we feel that this -- and I actually don't know who put forward or who actually wrote this EMO, but from our perspective in reading this thing, the important thing is that the dialogue get started at the beginning. And if there are going to be potential difficulties, that those are identified at the beginning of the process rather than at the end when we get into an adversarial relationship which we would prefer not to have as we go through the process. CHAIRMAN: And I don't mean, at all, to pick on Tennessee in their absence, but did that arise out of -- I know there was a contentious review process last year and was this the resolution that tried to deal with the problem? MS. KIMBALL: Right. And it really became SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### very apparent to us, if there had been early involvement, than it wouldn't have gotten to the point where we had lawyers talking. We could have resolved the issues early on. CHAIRMAN: Right. And you say it's like something that you already have got in place Virginia? MS. KIMBALL: We already have an MOU in Virginia that establishes the same sort of thing that there's early dialogue. It does not, either -- it doesn't do anything to abdicate the regulatory responsibilities of the state or the review processes of the federal land manager. What it does is, it makes communication occur at an earlier point in the process, so that problems can -- potential problems can be identified early on and worked on cooperatively rather than adversarily later. CHAIRMAN: David. MR. CARR: Yeah, for those of you who don't know, we are on the Tennessee Electoral Appeal, which is the National Parks Conservation Association. And our organization is somewhat involved in the park service, of course, just a SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### comment on this, and it indicates that I've been out of the loop and I apologize for that somewhat. As I understood this when it went through the policy committees, that the notification provision here was 200 kilometers. And consistent with the idea of talking early and finding out whether or not this plan -- we might be concerned by this plan or not, to have a 100 kilometers cut off, and people are going to err on the side of -- people can err both ways. But why, if it's just a voluntary, let's have early communications, why you'd want to have a 100 kilometers cut off in here. I certainly don't support that, and I think it's contrary to what was agreed to by the policy committee, so -- CHAIRMAN: I think the gist of the group is, that trying to be too specific about the details, is not a good idea. I just wonder, if there's -- if there is a memorandum of agreement that two member states have already adopted with you. If you could move us into the direction of trying to see if everybody is comfortable with adopting that idea. MR. HOPKINS: I asked Chris Doss who's SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### here with me from the Department of Environmental Quality, if he would get me copies of those. I have not seen those MOUs. CHAIRMAN: What is the -- MR. JANSEN: There is some -- there are some differences between the MOU with Virginia. The MOU with Virginia was prepared back in the late 1990's. So, certainly, they have included some different language in there. So, they're not the same MOU, but they say basically the same thing -- that if you get early notification, get cooperation, compensation, and those types of measures, then that's -- CHAIRMAN: And, is it not overly prescriptive in its details? MR. JANSEN: There are some criteria in there about how many kilometers, what are the sources beyond that and notify -- CHAIRMAN: Right. But did the state agree to it? MR. JANSEN: That's right. I think it's important that we come to some consensus with respect to the consistency. Because like you said, there are two states with memorandums of SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### understanding. And like Richard said, different states do different things. And I guess I would like for all the states in the region to be on a consistent basis and treat everything equal. CHAIRMAN: If that's possible. What I sense around the table is that it's hard to be against open dialogue and early communication that serves everybody's interest, and I think it would be a good outcome for this phase of SAMI to have the states make that commitment to the process. At this point, I don't know whether there's a model MOU that we would all feel comfortable endorsing or how we ought to proceed on that, but rather than do this -- approve this in its current form, I'd like to -- Tom said he wants -- he hasn't had a chance to review it in place, I wasn't aware that the other states had them, so I'd like to get -- MR. HOPKINS: I'd be glad get a copy of that when I go back to Richmond and FAX it to Leslie. CHAIRMAN: If we could get that and the Tennessee one reviewed as -- with an eye toward modifying this EMO, to be more general along the SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### lines that Randy and Sue have described and at least consider the possibility of whether there is a model MOU that we might want to endorse or something similar to a model MOU. Rich. MR. DAMBERG: Yeah. I just wanted to make a comment that the specificity in this is pretty consistent with what is happening with the research routine reform efforts that EPA has underway right now and has had for a couple of years. The committee went through an acceptance process, and some of you may have been involved, but with all, you know, the stakeholders from all sectors, and these were the recommendations that are coming out. This will be a proposed rule fairly soon I think. And so though the issue of a 100 kilometers I believe is still one of the more controversial ones, let's say, but -- this idea about having a fact sheet electronically forwarded to the BACT/LAER Clearinghouse, a thirty-day notification is going to be in there. So, you know, there's been a lot of discussion by people probably with the motive of the same organizations that are here at the table. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### MR. MILLER: That's all I was going to do is say I'm with the same thing Rich said. This EMO came at -- wasn't it turned into anybody originally? There was provisions in another EMO that had sort of notification procedures in that. That was turned in, I think by Karen Malcom, I think it was three. And because there wasn't enough specificity, they went back and looked at the rule-making for the PSD new source review package that was coming out. And I think it's basically consistent with that. And that's why it's in here because it's going to be mandated, presumably anyway, if that rule is approved by the PSD regulation. So that's how it came about. MS. ANDREWS: I would suggest we wait until we see it in rule-making form then. CHAIRMAN: Is there a draft on the street of a rule? MR. MILLER: Yeah. It's about to be published, but I think it's -- somebody told me like within the next week or two, I think it's finally supposed to be published. CHAIRMAN: Rich. MR. DAMBERG: Yeah, I guess that just SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### reinforces we can leave this general if there's going to be rules that come out that impose requirements. Whatever those final rules are you all have to do, so why try to -- CHAIRMAN: What -- are you saying -- that this would -- this would totally supplant the need for these memorandum of agreements that are in place now? Is all of this going to be mandated? MR. MILER?: Well, I think, the memorandum of agreement, as I understand it, and help me, John, or maybe a little more broader, you know what I'm trying to say, but a lot of the specifics -- I think, a lot of the question was, what sources, what universe, you know, what gets reported on, and that was the whole intent of -- in EMO three of having verbiage in there. And I think, that's part of the PSD new source review package is to better define what it is that should be reported to the land manager when those permits are coming forward. MR. ________: My problem with the regulation, at least the current regulation also requires that upon notification, the EPA's guidance memo dated as far back as 1979, where federal land SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### managers are supposed to be notified where sources up to a 100 kilometers in large sources beyond a 100 kilometers, that wasn't being done adequately. So that's why we kind of went to the MOU approach trying to get them spelled out and more conscious to the state. CHAIRMAN: I like the idea of an MOU. It certainly is more preferable to me than having EPA tell us what we have to do, so if we can pursue that, I think we should. I think, where we are on this, is that there seems to be agreement to the concept of making a recommendation for enhanced dialogue. We're going to get the two existing memorandums as well, and hope to get the draft of the EPA policy and see if we can get this reworked into a form that we can approve in Greenville, and presumably, that would be one that is less prescriptive in its details. Okay. EMO 72 Environmental Enterprises. MR. NICHOLSON: Okay. SAMI recommends that each member state evaluate the formation of a group in state government, an environmental enterprise team, to promote pollution prevention and energy efficiency in businesses that relocate to the SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### state. And this is a recommendation to the states that the states consider formation of such a team. I think, that's it probably. Unless anybody else wants to speak up, I won't go into anymore detail. The idea being that such a team would interact with respect to industry that would come to an area and address the issues of pollution prevention, energy conservation, and so forth, up front with the industry before they actually make the decision on locating in the state. CHAIRMAN: I'm Sorry, Bob Kerr is not here, he'd probably have some thoughts about this being in this business. MR. REHEIS: Bob Kerr is the Director of Pollution Prevention Assistance Division in Georgia Department of Natural Resources. He is a member of our new industry team and we include pollution prevention along with the environmental permitting program representatives whenever our Department of Industry and Trade brings in a new industry prospect. So we're doing that in Georgia now and see it as a positive. CHAIRMAN: Brian. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### MR. MORTON: Yeah. I think that the basic idea here is to take advantage of the special window of opportunity that arises here when a new business is considering relocating to a state. In the process of working with the state of North Carolina on helping develop its comprehensive strategic economic development plan, I have learned that most businesses that are considering relocating to the state are interested in the existing buildings. So this EMO attempts to provide technical assistance in the areas of pollution prevention as well as energy efficiency. To new businesses that are relocating to an area, there might be specialized opportunities areas, low cost opportunities for doing some interview efficient _______________ or using some advanced pollution prevention technologies which conceivably could benefit the environment quite broadly, but the Southern Appalachian Mountains, in particular. I think another interesting feature of doing all this is that it explicitly calls for the integration of two activities that heretofore have been largely separate. One is environmental SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### protection and the other is economic development. And as you see in the text here, there is specific mention that probably the best way to form such a team is to get people from the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Environment working together on this -- working with industry recruiters compliance giving greater siemens (phonetic) to air quality consideration and providing a subsidy, if you will, in the form of information and encouragement of technical assistance. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask a question? The wording in the paragraph here, that says, SAMI's only recommending that states consider forming these teams, does most of this EMO mean that we'll consider this or that we will do it? And a particular concern, I guess, there's one thing that I would raise about this, and I don't know to what extent it implies any new resources -- I'll -- I'm happy to say, on the record, I think this is an excellent idea and we ought to be doing it. And I'm happy to try to make that happen in North Carolina, but we all are operating at a time of reduced resources rather than the other way around. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### MR. MORTON: Well, that's why, I think, I worded it to say that SAMI is recommending that the states consider because each state differs in its resource of -- in the resources that they conceivably could apply to the formation of an environmental enterprise team. So, the differences in resources I think is important to recognize, so I felt that it would be better if we say consider this idea. SAMI would recommend that you consider this idea. That provides more flexibility to the states that might need it. CHAIRMAN: It, also, would be helpful to just learn what Harold described. It would be helpful to learn what one another, what each of us is doing, and we might be able to figure out a way that we could get this done at low cost without new resources MR. DOSS: We've a pretty strong pollution prevention team in Virginia that's been around for a couple of years. We also have an acoustal (phonetic) management team bureau dealing with development in the Chesapeake Bay area. Industries coming to Virginia today are relatively clean. If you want to benefit the SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### environment, we have found that our experience has been much better in dealing with the industries that have dated equipment. And in those areas, we've managed to have some very good proactive solid stuff with measurable reductions in emissions and pollution, but the major gains are certain to be made. If I may use the analogy, with the cars of technology 10 and 15 years old versus cars of today's technology. Your measurable gains are from industries you already have in your states, far more than from industries you're inviting to your states today for them to be environmentally conscious. CHAIRMAN: Well -- MR. HOPKINS: We, also, have basically the team concepts. We don't call it environmental enterprise team. But our people at his agency, at Chris's agency, Department of Environmental Quality, are involved early on with their department of development, excuse me, economic development division, and work with these folks and tell them -- basically lay out for them, the regulatory regime they're going to be looking at and basically our philosophy, which our philosophy is to clean up the environment. It's not to beat people over the head, SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### it's bring them out of compliance, clean up the air. And so we do have a team concept. And folks from his agency are involved in the very early stages when we are talking to industry. It's something you can do. I mean, some of you here are strictly with a regulatory agency, but some of us, and I know you, Steve, like myself, similarly situated. But, you know, we're encouraging economic development in Virginia. Sometimes North Carolina beats us to the punch, but it's good to involve these people early on. It gives them, the industry, some comfort that they know that these folks are there to protect the environment, to enhance the environment, but they also recognize the realities that we need jobs and industry. I was very encouraged that the environmental defense fund is supporting economic development. CHAIRMAN: Well, would it be agreeable to first of all, broaden this, so that it's not limited to new business, that's Chris's comment, and then make clear that what we're calling for here is for each of the states to evaluate this type of approach and then report back to SAMI on where we are. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### Many are already implementing at least as much, I gather, and really use that as an information exchange and exploration of how we can improve upon our current efforts, learn from each other. Is that agreeable to the group? MR. MORTON: I think those are all good suggestions. I wrote this when I was working on this plan when I was with a group of recruiters working on marketing issues, and what I noticed was that there was this niche that could be filled with the environmental enterprise team. So that's where this context is focused on new or relocating business, but I certainly agree with you that there's no -- that we would benefit more by expanding the scope of the environmental enterprise team to both existing, as well as new businesses. CHAIRMAN: Good. All right. Thank you, for I think what has been a very productive discussion of these EMOs, and I want to thank the policy committee and you who have been involved in developing these for our consideration. I know a tremendous amount of effort has gone into this, and I think there's some very good ideas that are on the table, and I think that we are in pretty clear SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### consensus of where we're headed with these. We do need to rework some of them. I had a chance to talk to a few of you at the break about how we get from where we are now to where we need to be in Greenville and my suggestion is that rather than losing whatever information may be lost if we try to transfer this back to others, that we have a subcommittee of this group, of the governing body, that would work to develop the actual -- the final text and content of these items for our action and approval in Greenville in June. If that's agreeable, that's how I plan to proceed and try to convene that group as much as possible by phone over the next few weeks. Is that a reasonable way to proceed? I think we've had a good common understanding here. I'm reluctant to farm this out to folks who are not here today with perhaps unclear directions of what we want. And let's just see if we can get these ideas captured, get the modifications made. I frankly think this format is not really appropriate for what would come before some final action either. And so we would retool this, circulate it well in advance. I'd like to get the SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### work done in the next two to three weeks. Any comments on that approach? If there's any folks who are particularly interested in being included in that process, I do want to be sure that Joe and David or their representatives participate, so we have that stakeholder perspective, and then we can get a couple of states to work with me and Alan and Brock. We'll try to undertake that. We'd be happy to have as many as want to be involved, but my suggestion is this is a drafting process and we ought to keep it small, and then bring it back to the group. But we should have a federal land manager or a federal agency participate. MR. REHEIS: I was feeling good about it until you said the next two or three weeks. That's going to be tough for me. CHAIRMAN: Well, I want to be sure we get something done and get it out to the group. We've got what, about six weeks until our Greenville meeting, so that's the time period. MR. CARR: What's the date of the meeting? CHAIRMAN: The 8th and 9th -- 9th and 10th SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### of June. My hope is that those in North Carolina could convene in person and we could involve a couple of other people by phone. That may weigh in favor Randy of you representing the federal government on this, but I -- MR. PHILLIPS: Stay in touch with me on time frames on that, Suzette, and I can talk back and forth and work something out. CHAIRMAN: What I would envision is asking the staff, probably led by Brock, who's been taking all these notes, to take a shot at drafting something, and we'd come together as a group and review it and massage it a little further and then get it out to the full group for review. MR. REHEIS: I'll volunteer. CHAIRMAN: Harold advisedly, cautiously, accepts, and I'll plan on participating. Anybody else who wants to join in this effort? MR. HOPKINS: Let me give you a call, if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN: All right. Lunch is waiting for us upstairs. Because of the rules governing the use of this room, we're going to relocate to the 14th floor, which is where our executive offices SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### are. It would be a little crowded if we were all in one room up there, so we have a conference room, where the food is, and then the secretary's office and my office are available for you to enjoy, and you can just get some food and go in there. It is the best view in state government in North Carolina, in part, because you don't have to look at this building from the outside. [LUNCH RECESS] CHAIRMAN: All right. Let's get back to our agenda. Why don't we get some brief reports from our committees on where they are and what they may need from us between now and the next meeting. Brock, do you want to say a word about where the policy committee is? MR. NICHOLSON: I'm not sure what I want to add -- I don't know that I really have any -- CHAIRMAN: Lucy probably has a lot to say -- why don't you collect your thoughts. I didn't mean to put you on the spot -- MS. CABOT-SMETHURST: : Thanks a lot. MR. JOY: It's all meaningful, too, Lucy. MS. CABOT-SMETHURST: Thank you, Joe. I SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### will be very brief. Let's see, the status of the brochure is, it's in its graphic stage, it has been approved by the PAC and is about to be sent out in limited distribution in color to be approved, and we hope to have the final product in front of you, we don't promise you, we've had some unforeseen delays along the way, but we hope to have it in front of you by the June meeting. So we have launched the official brochure. We just finished a meeting on April 2nd and 3rd in Knoxville when the PAC met. We had four fact sheets the entire meeting that we agreed to produce on and they are as follows: Feasibility, general air pollution, the Clean Air Act, and public participation. Our goal is to get all of them in final form, with no last minute changes, as we did on the brochure, but in final form, peer reviewed and everything, so you all can look at them and hopefully send through the process. We feel that we'll probably have three of them. The Clean Air Act, as you can imagine, is a little slower going and it may have a little longer track, but things are going very well there. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### Obviously, now that you've given us all this work to do, we'll be very busy at the June meeting. And as Doug Neeley said, "Well, it looks like you're asking for money again." He said he will put me into the TOC and teach me how to get money. On another note, the executive summary, which most you, I think, have seen which is basically the annual report put in, if you will, more layman terms, to take to Congress to get some more money for SAMI in its final reiteration of these agendi. And so let's hold off talking about that. CHAIRMAN: We can just jump right into it, if you like. MS. CABOT-SMETHURST: All right. Let me give you a little background and then Leslie and I will do some plumbing on it. At the beginning of the executive summary was that Steve and Alan called me one day and said we need a more saleable format and would you take it on and put it through the process, peer review it. We hired a consultant to help us with it and it has now reached final form. I want to give a lot credit to this young woman on my left because Leslie has taken a document SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### and done a tremendous amount of work on it. And I, personally, and all of us in the PAC, really appreciate her very fine support and her very good writing skills. So where we are now, the final countdown and we need to have it approved, so why don't you pick up from there? MS: COX: Yes. What I handed out around the table was, once again, there was a change that happened on the Tuesday after I'd already sent stuff around, but they were pretty minor changes from what everyone had been reviewing. John Duniak (phonetic) provided me with a couple of polishing remarks that didn't really change anything, but made it a little smoother. And Doug Neeley pointed out that what we need to do is take all references to request for funding out of the document, so we don't violate our grant and put all that into the cover letter, which goes back to a lot of original comments we say everything up front and as clear and precise as possible. So that's what I did. I pulled out that reference, that language, from the document and tried to add it into the cover letter. I got a call SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### yesterday, from Kimper Eagle (phonetic) who had seen this revision, and he made one other comment that I had not addressed that I was going to try to address, and I took a stab at it adding one paragraph that no one has seen, that anyone who wants to see can see. In the last section we felt that we needed to speak more, to show why should Congress give SAMI five million dollars and compare it more to the Grand Canyon, then say, look, the Grand Canyon had five million dollars. They just looked at visibility. We're looking at four values. We're looking at that. He wanted us to be clear, more clear about the fact that we need to custom design this integrated assessment to the area because it's unique. So what I was trying to do was add a small paragraph in the last section that discussed it and to figure out where I could make the comparison to the Grand Canyon and showing that it's a bargain, in the cover letter. I haven't done that part, yet, but that was the only other change. I think -- we've done the best we could to incorporate all the comments. We've had, at least SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### 25 different commentators. And if we didn't get your comment, give it to us now. When you have all -- when you're looking at so many different comments, you might miss one here or there. MR. REHEIS: Leslie, the one comment I thought of is that we should do something, maybe along the lines of what was just suggested to make it clear to the Congressional delegations what we think they'll be getting if they fund this. And, considering the mood of Congress, the new Congress, I think it would be well if we were to say something like what we're going to be getting for this money is scientific determination of whether additional controls beyond those required by the Clean Air Act are needed, in order to improve and protect the air quality related values of the Southern Appalachian Mountains. And that the stakes are high here. The stakes are high if we don't protect these values properly. The stakes are also high in the terms of the cost of controls that may or may not be needed and those controls could run to billions of dollars. And that's why we need to base our decision on good science. And the money that we're asking for SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### Congress to provide, will get us to that good science. They're very concerned about the issue of risk and benefits for environmental and health and natural resources and other programs, and I think if we, "ring that bell", in this letter then we've got a lot better chance of getting the money. So, some sentence or paragraph in here to that effect, I think, would help. MR. HOPKINS: I did not attend the meeting in Atlanta. But where did the five million dollars come from? Was that discussed in Atlanta? CHAIRMAN: In Atlanta we had some discussions of an operating budget for the life of the project, although they were not inclusive by any means, and we did ask the staff and the operations committee to do further work in evaluating what would be needed in order to implement our operating plan and to do the work. My recollection is, after that work was done, I don't remember how much was included in the budget that we approved, but we had a balance of -- was that just on this year's budget? MS. COX: Yes. The balance that we had was SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### obligating the current SAMI funds that we have available for '95 to all the requests. The requests certainly exceeded that, and the five million dollars dollar base, attempts to capture all of the needs that each committee said, if we wanted to do this right, this is how much it would take to do all these little projects and add that up -- the five million dollars plus is for the two-year period. MR. ANEJA: This is not meant to imply that the wish list was put forward, but in reality, an extensive debate took place that attempted to sit down, try to filter information, and and the five million dollars --. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. I appreciate that, but where I was going with my question, and pursuing Tom's thought, we did have a vote by mail or fax machine since the Atlanta meeting, but we only approved the current year's budget at that time, is that correct? MS.. COX: Correct. CHAIRMAN: So the governing body has not had before it the information that you just described and that Viney was discussing; that is, the governing body has not said, we hereby approve SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### this estimate of a work plan. We have done the approval of the initial round of work by the technical committee. But I think Tom raised a good point is that there is need -- MR. HOPKINS: Well, considering, you know, the scarcity of resources -- CHAIRMAN: Well. I'll tell you -- I agree with what Viney was implying. My sense is that is reasonable and realistic, maybe bare bones is too restrictive, but that is not an ambitious figure. But my point is, that decision has not been made by this governing body and I think, there is a need for that multi-year budget to be approved -- MR. HOPKINS: That's fine. I just know that when you go, you know, to Capital Hill it's going to be the question that's asked, well, what's five million dollars and what are you going to do with it. CHAIRMAN: It's not pulled out of the air. There is backup from our technical committees, but if you all will help me out, I'm correct, am I not, that there's not been a decision by this body as a group approving that multi-year budget? MS. COX: Correct. What you asked us to SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### do was to go forward -- you asked the operations committee to recommend how to obligate the current available funds for '95. CHAIRMAN: Right. MS. COX: So we did that. That basically gets us through all or most of Phase I of the technical assessments. The committee sat down and tried to figure out what they needed and their estimates kept getting bigger and bigger through those discussions. And the way that was left, is that we need to go to Congress and ask them for money to fund this. We have an idea that it's going to cost X amount of dollars to do all of this. So we were never asked to fully come up with -- CHAIRMAN: I wasn't suggesting that you didn't do something you were asked to do, I'm just saying that -- MS. COX: Right. CHAIRMAN: That I think, we need to bring that before the governing body, and I'm not suggesting that it needs to slow down because the congressional process will take a long time. I don't want to slow it down, but we are going to get -- you would expect some hard questions and want to SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### see something other than just, "Hey, we think this is a good number." So, I'd like the -- at the Greenville meeting for us to have before us, and have it well in advance of the meeting, that multi-year budget, so that by the time somebody in Congress may be acting on this request, we will have buy-in at this level and we may need to revise it somewhat upward or downward. MR. HOPKINS: Yeah. There's another question that I have. Once again, not attending the Atlanta meeting, and I had -- got a briefing paper on what took place, but I don't recall what has finally -- the final resolution of private fund raising and where we stand on that. CHAIRMAN: Viney. MR. ANJEA: Indeed, in the technical oversight the committee the point was raised and some discussion was given to that subject as to if we should go forward in trying to solicit resources other than the government. There has been a lot of opinion on that issue, which is to say, that if we want to get private, if I can use the word, investors for these resources, to fund, will it SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### appear as if there is some conflict of interest here, or not? And those thoughts were indeed debated and discussed. And the resolutions of these -- not the resolutions. The thinking at that point in time, it will be at least as far as technical oversight committee was concerned is, if we can continue to enjoy the support that we have been getting from the government, that would be the most preferable. CHAIRMAN: Funding committee? MR. HARWOOD: The funding committee is not really active these days, but we are talking about some things. I think at the last meeting we gave a little report. I don't have that information with me. MS. COX: Where we left was, the funding committee was attempting to help with the executive summary to try and suggest that we need to come up with a strategy for the funding. The discussions about seeking outside funding basically, is that we would not turn away additional sources, but we weren't going to actively go out and compete against some of the other nonprofit groups that are participating. That was not the intent. That we SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### would be able to accept money from outside sources. MR. NEELEY: Doug Neeley with TOC. Two things, one on the budget itself. In Atlanta we presented a fairly detailed budget, although, it wasn't adopted. So we can refine that and have it in a form to present at the Greenville meeting. And as far as the TOC and outside funding, basically what we said, that as a TOC, we think SAMI should welcome this funding if there's no strings attached, but, if there's strings attached, we would accept it only if it benefited SAMI, so that's where we left it. CHAIRMAN: Lucy. MS. CABOT-SMETHURST: Steve, I have a concern about the view of the strategist in this, of course, but I have a concern if -- are you saying that we should hold this report pending the adoption of the budget? CHAIRMAN: No. I attempted to say explicitly that we shouldn't do that, but I think the timing -- see, we're only six weeks away from the Greenville meeting, there's not going to be any action. We may not even get a presentation made to anybody in Congress between now and then. I don't SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### know what the production process is like -- I'm confident that five million dollars is a reasonable ballpark figure. It's not going to be one. It's not going to be ten. By the time we sit down with some staff or members of Congress and make the case, we need to have a multi-year budget that has been approved by this governing body and that reflects our best judgement as to -- not only the total, but how we would spend those dollars. And As Doug said, there's a lot of work -- this is not a big assignment, a lot of work has been done, but I want it to come back to the governing body for approval. It shouldn't slow you down at all. MS. CABOT-SMETHURST: Well, we'd like to go ahead, and obviously, get this get thing printed. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, I think that's fine. Joe. MR. HARWOOD: I ordinarily wouldn't bring this up, Steve, but as I mentioned in my note to you, I have got leave about 2:15. But I do want to touch on one thing about the letter that's on the front of this document and our participation and SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### discussions on the Hill, if indeed that's the place obviously where we're going end up. But for whoever is up there talking, I think, it's going to be imperative. Towards the last or the third to the last paragraph, we talked about "dependable financial support procedure in performing the integrated assessments." I had written you a letter, earlier in the year, expressing some concerns about where we are with the integrated assessment process. And I do believe, that probably there's going to be some questions asked from members of Congress, "Well, tell me a little bit about this integrated assessment process, how's it working, is it working, is it in place, you know, why are you recommending these things; this, that, and the other. Based on our principles and even in our statements by various members of the committee, I think, all of us talk about some aspects of socioeconomic evaluations and those kind of things. I think, the concern is, perhaps, from some of the business interest and discussions we've had along these lines, is that we try to get that issue resolved and expedited as quickly as possible. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### We've been batting it around the TOC for a while, it's been over to other places and it's, basically, not getting done. I would have trouble speaking with my Congressmen and Senators on this issue and not being able to, I think, speak very positively and affirmatively about the integrated assessment process. We spoke about it in here. I just want to get that the record. CHAIRMAN: Well, since Joe does have to leave and he's representing the business perspective on a couple of these issues, I suggest that we just go ahead and jump into those a little bit. It does have some bearing on this. I'll shuffle the agenda. . I think, there's two issues that I'd like to take up at this time. One is the concern that has been expressed, and I had intended to get to these under new business. One of the concerns that's been expressed, is that we're not adequately carrying out that portion of our mission related to assessment and socioeconomic impacts of costs of preventatives of the various measures. And, secondly, we move to the integrated SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### assessment. There's been a lot of discussion about the contractor selection process. I think, before Joe gets away, we might as well take that up as well. On the first point, I'm not exactly sure where we stand on that either, Joe, or what the nature of the problem is or what the business community thinks we need to be doing at this stage of SAMI that we're not now doing. As Chairman, I'm fully committed to fulfilling that part of our charge in our mandate. We had a kind of cross committee team or there is one in place on socioeconomic impacts. I'm not quite sure what the expectation is of that group or how it's supposed to be working, if there's a way that we need to restructure our approach to those issues, I'm very open to hearing about it. Do you all have some specific suggestions as to what you think a more successful, what might not look right or there's some product that we ought to be aiming for? I'm assuming that those issues get fully considered as part of the integrated assessment. I think, there were some issues concerning the near-term EMOs and whether there -- I SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### think that we addressed pretty well in the way we handled those, in terms of whether some things might be recommended that without consideration of costs and benefits. Maybe you could help me by telling me what you all would like to see happen at this stage of the process. MR. HARWOOD: Well, I'll ask my colleagues to join in, in just a moment, but I think overall, it really hasn't been -- at least from my perspective, and again, not to single out any individual who's not done anything, because we've all been involved with the success and/or the failures of the process up to this point, but I do think that from an industry perspective, we're a little delinquent in getting this whole socioeconomic process put into place, finding it a kind of permanent home. I know we talked about that before. I think Doug is working on that, but at the same time, I think, this governing body should encourage the operation's efforts to take that into full account as we move forward. With that, I'll yield to John, if he's got anything to add to that approach and there has been some things he's been SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### thinking about, too. John. MR. JANSEN: Yeah. I guess, in direct response to the question, what is it we would like to see happen. I think, number one, would be the issue of just moving the process forward. I think there's been some undue delays that were unnecessary despite some hard work on some people's part, misunderstandings, miscommunications, whatever caused it. So we need to move forward. On the issue of socioeconomics, it is gotten mired down into what the definitions are. We continue to try to move that forward. Where we are now as of the Richmond meeting, is that we needed the help of the integrated assessment contractor to help us get through that process. In other words, we as a community or as a committee were not able to resolve the issues of scope for the socioeconomic analysis to the point of getting on with doing substantive work, and we finally agreed that the only way we are going to do that is let's merge it with the integrated assessment, let's get a good contractor on board, someone who really knows what they are doing to help us facilitate through that process. We tried to do SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### that, and then, of course, we were delayed again. I would say the next thing that comes to mind is the question of deadlines. I think that, even before the most recent delays in the integrated assessment process, we're moving that along. It was becoming pretty clear, if one just looks at the technical oversight committee as an example, the initial Phase I work was supposed to be accomplished by the end of last year or sometime very early this year. At best, given just the difficulties of selecting people to do the work, writing the scopes of work, coming to consensus on all of that, that work is not going to be completed until towards the end of this year. The integrated assessment work is not nearly as far behind, but it may be further behind because we haven't reached the point of getting started. I think that raises some very serious questions about whether we can accomplish credible, technical assessments by the May of '97 deadline, and we need to raise that now and address that. CHAIRMAN: Well, let me see if I can take the issues sequentially. On the issue that we started with, how we fulfill our mission to fully SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### consider socioeconomic impacts. This committee or group, I forget what we call it, had kind of sprung up. And I agree fully with what John reports, I guess, to be the thinking of a larger group, which really is what the integrated assessment is all about. And the integrated assessment is taking different control strategies and evaluating them in terms of their benefits and their costs and what they're going to accomplish for air quality values and what they will cost society to implement them. So, if I under -- I don't know who was present in the meeting or who was sharing that view, but I'm very comfortable with the idea that, how we go forward is to get the integrated assessment moving and to roll the socioeconomic consideration into that. Where it should, in my view, should have been have been all along. Is there some -- do we need to talk about that further? Is there some action that we need to take as a governing body to make clear that that's where we are headed before we get to the issue of getting the integrated assessment moving and dealing with deadlines? John. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### MR. JANSEN: The only thing I would say is that it's going to come down to a question of resources and the proper allocation of funding to develop data and tools to assess whatever socioeconomic parameters the group finally decides they want to deal with. And, so, I'm not confident that even though, yes, maybe it's in the right place now, and we're about to do the right process, I don't have a lot of confidence that we're actually going to achieve it. CHAIRMAN: Well, who can we -- MR. JANSEN: I don't know how else to deal with it. CHAIRMAN: Well, I guess we need some -- I don't know whether it's the operation -- I'm not even sure where these discussions got -- who met in Richmond? This was -- MR. NEELEY: Let me answer some of that because we're just beating the edges here. I can tell you who met in Richmond. We brought together the socioeconomic work group, the members of the integrated assessment framework work group, and anyone else on the TOC that wanted to meet in Richmond. So that was a party at Richmond where we SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### decided to go ahead and merge the socioeconomic and the integrated assessment, and get us a contractor on board to help us get over these difficult hurdles. And that is the group that met in Richmond, and that's what we decided at that Richmond meeting. MR. ANEJA: I would have to say, if I could interrupt, but we did not go to Richmond to get a contractor on board, what we got in Richmond was to get a full extent of what the problem is and debate some of the contractors who might be willing and get opinions from experts who were also invited to the Richmond meeting to give us some insight as to who the potential people are who might do the work. I thought the motion of contractors was immediately after the meeting -- MR. NEELEY: No, no, no. The issue of the contractor came up during the course of the meeting -- MR. ANEJA: Yes. Yes, that is correct. MR. NEELEY: Because we had recognized that we needed help and all of us came to the consensus that we needed to get us someone with expertise in this area on board to help us. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### CHAIRMAN: Well, let me do this, in the interest of trying to move this forward. The first issue before us is how we ensure the accurate consideration of socioeconomic issues. We've had a work group, its proposal that it be integrated, combined with the integrated assessment work group and get a contractor on board. My request is that the operations committee bring a proposal to us in Greenville that lays out what the game plan is for going forward to be sure that the concerns of the business community are addressed and that these issues are adequately dealt with. I think we've got something that is like that game plan already, but rather than continue to debate in that level of detail, let's make it perfectly clear how we are going to carry out this part of our mission. Yes. MR. REHIES: Well, there's help -- excuse me, Doug -- MR. NEELEY: This is Doug Neeley. I just want to respond to that. We have a game plan. And our game plan is to -- we have gotten in proposals from all of these contractors that have expressed an interest, and we made an initial cut. And we had SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### scheduled an April 18th meeting -- CHAIRMAN: I'm going to make this -- I'm going to make a summation -- MR. NEELEY: Okay, but I thought you were talking about the process, I guess -- is that not what you were talking about? CHAIRMAN: There are three issues that I want to talk about as far as this discussion. One is how we deal with socioeconomic issues; second, is how we move the integrated assessment forward, which is related; third is what we do about overall time lines. So, what I'd like to get, by the Greenville meeting, is a clear game plan of the process, so that when we leave that Greenville meeting, we don't have people saying, SAMI is not fulfilling its mission, it's not moving quickly or clearly to deal with socioeconomic issues. I think these issues begin to collapse because what I hear you saying, is that if we move the integrated assessment forward, that is going to be the vehicle for dealing with socioeconomic issues as I think it should be. I'd simply like to have -- I don't want to keep talking today about what happened in Richmond and that sort of thing. Just SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### bring something in writing that says, here is how we plan to accomplish this. MR. REHEIS: Well, would it help if we, as the governing body, simply take a vote here on a motion to direct the TOC to integrate or merge the socioeconomic evaluation into the integrated assessment and cover it that way. CHAIRMAN: Brian. MR. MORTON: I'm Brian Morton. I am a member of the socioeconomic's work group. The socioeconomic's work group has discussed the question of whether we want to merge our efforts with the integrated assessment work group. And we have rejected the proposal that the socioeconomic's work group merge with the integrated assessment work group, thinking that the issues that the socioeconomic's work group is addressing are so large in magnitude that we need to -- that there is a need for a group to focus specifically on those issues. And, furthermore, I think, what has been missing from this discussion so far about the progress, or lack thereof, of the socioeconomic's work group, the recognition of some fundamental, SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### substantive disagreements over how the socioeconomics component of the integrated assessment should be, how it should be structured. So, it's not as though some of us on the socioeconomic's work group are dragging our feet or are in some way unresponsive to the will of SAMI and the governing body to have an assessment which looks at socioeconomic consequences. To the contrary, a number of us, I, in particular, have proposed a very specific course of action for what we, the socioeconomic's work group, ought to be doing or the how the socioeconomic component of the frame work should be structured. We, as a work group, have not come to an agreement, though, on how to proceed with the resolution of those issues. CHAIRMAN: Well, let me -- I think this matter needs to be resolved by the governing body, one way or the other. I'm not sure that we ever acted to create this socioeconomic's work group There may be good reasons to have one continue separate from the integrated assessment. I don't know the answer to that, but I don't want us to be debating it in the dark here. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### And this is the first time that we, as a governing body, are hearing much of these debates. And if everybody is as confused about it as I am, then is unlikely to make any good decisions about it today. So, my suggestion and my request is that this be made an agenda item for the June meeting and that it be presented by the operations committee with a recommendation or series of options on how we move this forward. And if one work group or multiple work groups, whatever it's going to be, and what they're supposed to do and how this job is going to get done. Joe. MR. HARWOOD: Steve, I'm certainly not implying that there hasn't been some discussion and some attempts to move it forward. What bothers me most about this letter is that we say in here, it's key to performing credible and various assessments in cost analysis and benefits and so and so and so. We really haven't done that. And I-- MR. REHEIS: Which letter are you talking about? MR. HARWOOD: The one -- the draft letter that would accompany this request for funding. And my caution is, I'm not interested in going to the SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### Hill -- no, it's going to be difficult to work this issue with these kinds of statements in here until we get some of these issues resolved. And I have to give Doug credit. I think Doug has tried to move the ball forward. And I certainly don't want to take away from what he's done, but I'm telling you, I think it's difficult for numbers of us to have to deal with that part of it when dealing -- CHAIRMAN: Let me point out that there's -- you say we haven't done it. There's two things that I perceive give rise to that concern. First of all, there were some EMOs -- so-called near-term EMOs proposed that had significant cost associated with them if you interpreted them or applied them in a certain way. And I understand that you have some concerns and you expressed those in comments. I think, the way we've handled those EMOs addresses those concerns. I don't think that there's anything that we have acted on or approved in concept that creates that problem of great, or of any uncalculated costs, that are not being considered at this step of the process. There's a second concern, which is, do we have the process and methodology in place so this SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### assessment and SAMI goes forward. These concerns are going to get -- socioeconomic concerns will be appropriately considered. And what is that possibly? And that's what, I think, has to be resolved at this next meeting. So there's no doubt about it, here's how this is going to work, here's the game plan for moving it forward, so that you don't feel that it's getting -- it's not getting enough attention. Joe. MR. HARWOOD: Just one follow-up comment. I think, looking at the way the Congress is looking at things now with regard to cost-benefit analysis in an organization like SAMI's that's in place that has brought together interested parties to discuss these kinds of things, there may be some real interest there. I don't want to get caught up with the thought that after, you know, looking further behind, what's really here, that there's not a lot there. That's what bothers me most. CHAIRMAN: Good. Okay. Brian. MR. MORTON: With a number of my colleagues in the environmental community, I have prepared a letter responding to Joe's letter to the governing body, March 30, in which he raises a SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### number of these issues and I would ask that the members of the governing body to read the letter and consider our response to Joe's letter. And David, would you pass that letter out to the members of the governing body? CHAIRMAN: And I'm happy for folks to receive that, but I think, -- we're not going to take any action on this today. This will inform the discussions at out next meeting, but I do want the operations committee to bring us a recommendation on how we go forward to ensure that socioeconomic issues are appropriately considered. Doug. MR. NEELEY: I don't want to debate this either, Steve, but what I was trying to do was get a question because we have now rescheduled a meeting for May the 19th to select a contractor to help us design this framework, and I'd like a little sense of do we go forward with that instead of waiting until after Greenville. CHAIRMAN: Greenville, that was issue number two. MR. NEELEY: Good. I just didn't know what you meant by wait until Greenville. MR. CARR: Just given the makeup of this SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### body, and I haven't been involved with the socioeconomic work group, but I see very little risk that the cost of -- socioeconomic costs, are not going to be considered. We can see what happens -- the process in working through this. I know the environmental community has pushed for benefits to be considered in that equation. And I'm assuming that people agree that the benefits, even if they can't be quantified, need to be dealt with qualitatively and brought into this assessment. I think the parties are here to make this happen. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Let's move to -- Mr. Aneja. MR. ANEJA: I just want to echo a thought that you raised, you know, which is, right from the start we have three distinct, diverse groups that were brought into this core which was the industry, the advocacy group and the academe. The thought that I want to echo is that it is my judgement, from an academic perspective, that indeed we have made a whole lot of progress and perhaps it's not coming out as such. And I would like the governing board to consider that. That indeed there has been a lot of progress that has been made. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### CHAIRMAN: Good. MR. ANEJA: I'm opposed to some of the parts that are being raised -- concerns that are being raised like this. CHAIRMAN: So let's move to the second issue, Doug is anxious to get to, the future of the integrated assessment and the contractor selection. The mail traffic has been lively on this subject, and my hope is that we can come out of this meeting and move forward with the appropriate guidance to the TOC, so they can act as Doug requests. I don't know if we need someone to frame the issue for us, so maybe we ought to be spared that misery. I know Harold has something to say on this subject. MR. REHEIS: I've read the mail and I've read the concerns that people have expressed over the selection process for a contractor, and I've read Doug's response to it. And what I think needs to happen is something that we've been needing since this process began, that we need to start trusting each other more so, and stop the fussing and the whining and the worrying about whether somebody is going to try to cheat somebody else somewhere down the road. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### If we can't gain a better level of trust than what we've got so far, I think this noble effort that we've been going at for two or three years now is going to come apart somewhere. And I just don't see much future for this organization unless we get to a better level of trust than we have. Now, I'm very satisfied with the response that Doug Neeley provided about the process of selecting contractors. And it's my understanding that the committee that is trying to do the selecting is prepared to meet either on May 18th or 19th, interview potential contractors, and make a selection. And what I think the governing body ought to do is charge them to go ahead and do that for this first contract. I think, we should further charge that they should go through the more -- the fuller advertisement and selection process for the big contract we expect to follow on after this framework contract is done. That we go ahead and put trust in that committee to make an appropriate selection, go ahead and pursue the contract with the contractor they select and get on with it. So moved. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### MR. CARR: I guess I'm not totally familiar with Doug's response. I thought I was, but one concern, I know that was raised was that a federal land manager actually occupying a seat on the committee and participating in that selection process, and I would, that may have been part of the suggestion made, probably was, I don't know, but it seems to me that ought to happen. MR. NEELEY: Oh, yes. We have been actively seeking a federal land manager to serve on the selection committee, and they have given me a name today. They have given me the name of Cathy Rose, who we'd asked about two weeks ago. And it was just going through their process of figuring out just who should serve. CHAIRMAN: My sense may jump in if we're wrong, but that the resolution that Harold just described is one that I think -- I'm under the impression that all sides have grown comfortable with; that is, first phase decision that is made quickly, without more elaborate R and P process, but that the second phase would be subject to that process. Is there any discussion or debate of that approach? Brian. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### MR. MORTON: That is basically what I can agree with. I would -- I would ask the governing body to consider, though, whether the selection committee, itself, acting independently of the operations committee and governing body, is the right group to select the contractor or whether the proper role of the selection, so-called selection committee is rather to make a recommendation to the governing body through the operations committee. CHAIRMAN: I would agree with that. I don't think that we have authorized any committees to retain -- to expend SAMI funds unilaterally or to obtain contractual services without action, and then with the operations committee -- MR. NEELEY: I don't have a problem, if that's the way you want it to operate, but every contractor that we have selected so far, we have not brought it to the governing body for approval. We have come to you to ask for funding to proceed along these lines, but we have not come to the governing body and said, "this is the contractor we've chosen, vote on it or give us your blessing." And if you want us to do that, naturally, we'll do it, but we have not done that to date, and we do have a bunch SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### of contractors on board actively working on various projects. MS. ANDREWS: What criteria would the governing board use to evaluate the work of the contractor that you all have already examined and decided that this is the one that has the credentials you need to do the work, and yet it seems like it's almost a proforma. CHAIRMAN: Right. I stand corrected on the process. I think we have approved scopes of work, dollars amount. MR. NEELEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN: But not individual contracts. Brian. MR. MORTON: I would urge the governing body to consider the special significance of the integrated assessment work towards the first phase, which is the design phase, as well as the second phase or implementation phase of the integrated assessment. As you all seem to be suggesting, this is the very core of SAMI. So I think that the integrated assessment contractors are of unique significance. CHAIRMAN: Let me -- Viney. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### MR. ANJEA: My comment is along the line of why TOC has gone forward with giving awards to contractors after consulting with the operations committee and the governing body. The integrated assessment spans across technical issues, economic issues, policy issues. And I believe that it is -- it should be incumbent on us to -- after having made a decision on what the contractor is at the technical oversight committee level, that we should come back to the governing body and seek their blessing because it does span across these various issues. MR. JOY: I just have to make the observation. I would think it would be far more important to this group to see what the framework and the words actually are, that they are developed, and make sure it's carrying out for the governing body what it intends, more so than micro-manage the contractor selection, and then in turn, the words we will ultimately receive. So I would hope, since we've authorized a certain amount of money, that we will charge whatever group we think we should to come up with the proper selection of an individual, and then if we want to look at the words or some of SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### those things later, I think that would be more appropriate. CHAIRMAN: Let me ask this. Have prior decisions actually been made by the TOC or by the operations committee? Contractor selections. MR. NEELEY: Contractor selection. They've been made by the TOC and its various subcommittees and the committee. We've reported to the operations committee, but we have not asked for approval. CHAIRMAN: Who actually has approval? MR. NEELEY: Well, see these contracts are all a little bit different. Some of them that we're using, the EPA LOE contractors, EPA employees are the work-assignment managers. Now, with the others, we've used SAMAP for one, we've channeled some money through the park service for another one, so it's various mechanisms. SAMI, right now, has not signed a contract with SAMI's signature because, you know, we're just getting SAMI up. CHAIRMAN: Let me throw this out, as perhaps a compromise of what's been discussed in the last 10 or 15 minutes. We've got a selection committee that is -- has representatives from all SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### the constituency groups -- MR. NEELEY: Yes, and I'd be glad to give you those names and who they represent, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN: Right. My point is, that if the group can reach a consensus on a contractor, so there's not any controversy within the selection committee and everybody is comfortable, I'm happy to delegate that authority. But if we have a situation where there's strong difference of opinion on what is a key decision that cuts across different areas of our activity, I think we might want to kick that up for further discussion. John. MR. BUNIA: John Bunia, Park Service. Just one comment here. I'd like to get just a little bit of clarification on how the selection committee is going to make a decision. Is it simple wording that decides 1,2,3, and how is that going to be decided? I assume each member of the committee has equal rights with respect to voting and the governing body, of course, is going to have a vote voice. And I would assume that at that level, we'd have an equal voice in the selection process. MR. NEELEY: I don't know that we've sat SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### down and decided that it's -- there's nine people on it. If it's a five to four vote, whether we would go ahead or not, I don't think we would because we've always talked about consensus. If we had that kind of a split, we would come back to the operating committee for advice. But yes, everybody on the selection committee has a vote. We do have two advisors who do not have a vote, and they really won't even be participating from now on. They were advising us on how to get it going. CHAIRMAN: Well, why don't you -- I guess we have a motion on the table. I guess, what I had suggested would be an amendment to the motion that would direct you to go forward as proposed, if the committee is not able to achieve a working consensus on a contractor, that the issue be brought to the operations committee. And if the operations committee feels the need to bring it up for further discussion, it can do so. I don't think it serves anybody's interest to have a decision of this sort made on a five to four vote. MR. REHEIS: I would accept that amendment. MS. ANDREWS: Second. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion? All in favor, say aye. GOVERNING BODY: Aye. CHAIRMAN: Opposed? GOVERNING BODY: No response. CHAIRMAN: Good. I wish you good luck and we look forward to getting -- to learning of your consensus decision to obtain an integrated assessment contractor for Phase I. The remaining issue that's -- MS. COX: Can we back to the executive summary? Were you going onto something else? CHAIRMAN: I've got one other issue that's on the table that's part of this discussion and all this will feed into the last resolved executive summary, and that is the issue of timing. I think John Jansen raises a fair issue. Obviously, none of us want to see schedules slip. On the other hand, there is no possibility at all that we're going to compromise the work product by simply trying to shove more work into smaller spaces than can be done. We have a three-year time plan. If we expected to get Phase I work done in six months, and it hasn't been started, SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### that's a six month's slippage in the time schedule unless someone can figure out a way to make it up. So my suggestion is that the committee, the TOC and the operations committee, bring us a report in Greenville on where we are with the schedules and propose any necessary modifications that we may need. Rich. MR. DAMBERG: I think one of the key issues regarding the schedule is going to be whether it's going to be a RFP process or not. Obviously, that has been batted around a lot. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think the decision has been made on Phase II of the integrated assessment that it would be an RFP process. Brian. MR. MORTON: I'm sensitive to this deadline issue, although, what one means by an RFP, or request for proposals is rather elastic. So there is not just one RFP process, but rather there is a range of RFP processes. So with advanced planning, I would say it isn't necessarily true that going through some kind of RFP process for the second phase of the IAF work, in and of itself, necessarily implies a slippage of the deadline. CHAIRMAN: Good. That's the best news SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### I've had all day. All right. Any further discussion of these -- John, you're shaking your head. MR. JANSEN: What Brian has suggested is correct. It is possible to accelerate an RFP process. But one thing that I think we've all failed to work into our assessment of how long it's going to take to work, is just the process of trying to review and reach consensus on how to move each step in this process. If we're going to do credible work with the complexity issues before us, when we can really start looking at substantive EMOs, we haven't even gotten -- we haven't gotten the first product on the table yet that we have to come to agreement that this is a solid product that we all think is a good product and represents the science. We haven't gotten to that yet. How long is it going to take us to get through that? So, yes, it's possible we can try and we can all continue to work. But I do not believe that we're going to be able to do credible, substantive work by May 1997. CHAIRMAN: I think that what -- we've SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### already implicitly acknowledged there may be some slippage in that schedule. And my request to the operations committee is and TOC, is that we get a meaningful, realistic schedule brought before us. At the same time, I think there's going to be some things that we need to do to keep things on track and moving quickly. And, it may be that either the governing body or the operations committee or me or future Chairmen are going to have to do more to assert a little pressure -- not in making bad decisions, but in not having six months to track the debates on each step of how the process is resolved, so that we stay on schedule and get these questions about scope or framework or approaches resolved more quickly. I think we need to commit to that as we go forward. Leslie. MS. COX: Yes. CHAIRMAN: What else do we need to say about the executive summary? MS. COX: Where we are in the process, the operations committee had an opportunity to review it, and I discussed comments from Harold Reheis and I was trying to incorporate Kimper Eagle's SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### (phonetic) suggestion about being more specific about exactly what they were going to get for the money, which goes with what Joe Harwood said as well. What I'm looking for is guidance on the final process of getting this produced. I'm ready to just about take this to a printer. I'd like to do that next week if possible, if I can get the language right. I need to know how many people do I have to run this final copy by, are we basically comfortable with this? CHAIRMAN: I'd like to see it. MR. REHEIS: Why would you want to take this to a printer? MS. COX: We were going to print it up. We're having a -- MR. REHEIS: I'm sorry. I thought you were talking about the letter. MS. COX: No, the attachment to the letter. MR. REHEIS: I figured I'd send a letter over on my own letterhead. MS. COX: Right. There's the main document and the letter. So one question is, you SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### know, how can I finish this up and -- CHAIRMAN: This has been broadly reviewed already by a lot of people and all the states? MS. COX: Yes. Oh, yes. The process that we used was, we worked with a core group with consultants and then sent it out to each of the committees -- three peer reviewers from each committee, so say four from each committee, they circulated it wider than that, so more people have reviewed it. We took in all those comments. Then I circulated it to the operations committee. They had an opportunity to comment, and I've had a couple of last minutes come in and that's where we are now. CHAIRMAN: All right. Leslie would like to get this put to bed by next week. Would anyone, other than me, like to see it one more time? CHAIRMAN: Harold, all right. MS. COX: Secondly, we need a strategy to adjust some things. We suggested some things in the cover letter and we tried to make the cover letters personal to really bring it home, just who's participating from each state to make it from the state, but we felt that this was one thing we're doing. The PAC has worked to produce this document SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### , but if you just send it out and wait for something to happen, it's not likely. So what strategy would the governing body be using to go and follow up with this? We set it up that a SAMI representative will contact you and we expect that the governing body would say what they thought about that. Who might be contacting, who, in Congress. And I've gotten partial lists of committees, but I need a little more guidance as to who do you want to receive this report. Who am I sending this out to, which members of Congress? CHAIRMAN: Well, we had talked to either the PAC or the funding committee or staff about trying to develop that strategy of trying to figure out -- I'm no expert on Congressional appropriation process. Some of the EPA folks may be, but the question is, where's the action? Which committee is going to take this up? Who's on it, and how do we go about doing that? So I don't know the answer to that. Doug, you've a suggestion? MR. NEELEY: Yes. We have provided Leslie the listing of all of those that are on the appropriation committees and that's -- SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### MS. COX: That's only a partial one. MR. NEELEY: I thought we gave you the total list. MS. COX: No. MR. NEELEY: Yeah. If we didn't, you need to let us know. But we thought we gave you the total list of those on the appropriation committee, and that's the place to really start. CHAIRMAN: Has anybody determined how many people are on that -- presumably, there's one committee where this work will be done primarily, and did anybody determine who's on it from SAMI's states and whether any of them are from the mountain region that might have particular interest in this project? MS. COX: The list that you sent me -- I have a list of all representatives within the committee. The committee list only lists one or two individuals or sometimes it lists a group and it's the Republican list or it just lists the Chairperson. And I guess, I'm interested in -- do you want me to just send it to that or find -- MR. NEELEY: You need the whole list. CHAIRMAN: The follow-up strategy needs to SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### try to focus on a principal. One or more principal advocates who can advance this, and I don't think we need to take up time in this meeting to do that, but the staff and the operations committee can move that forward. Anything else on the executive summary list? Lucy. MS. CABOT-SMETHURST: Well, I guess I'm a little concerned, but I think that strategy is very important. And I'd like to make a recommendation that you would, because I know that Congressional time is flying and money is flying, too, if I remember my schedules right. So you go ahead and appoint a subcommittee of the -- either the governing body or the operating committee who are really politically-wise and can direct us. CHAIRMAN: I thought this was what the funding committee was supposed to do. MS. CABOT-SMETHURST: The what? CHAIRMAN: The funding committee. I thought that's what their job is, is to get us money, no? MS. CABOT-SMETHURST: When you and I and Alan had the conversation, and I said, you know, my understanding is you guys think the big picture and SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### the strategy and what we'll do is perform the document. CHAIRMAN: I'm not talking about the PAC, I'm talking about the funding committee. MS. CABOT-SMETHURST: No, that wasn't mentioned at this point, but it certainly is, now that Joe is gone, certainly a very good -- CHAIRMAN: I don't mean in that conversation, I just mean generally. I thought that's what the job of the funding committee was to do, was to secure money. MS. COX: The funding committee took it to a certain point, but we were still looking for guidance from the governing body. MR. REHEIS: I'd like to suggest that we get a subcommittee drawn out of the governing body to work up a strategy for how we go to Congress and ask for money. And I'd be willing to participate on that. I think that -- CHAIRMAN: You've just been appointed Chairman. MR. REHEIS: I don't know that I want to be Chairman, I only want to do it if Tom Hopkins will join me. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### MR.. HOPKINS: Try your hat in hand, you got the hat in the hand. CHAIRMAN: Tom, are you willing to assist Harold in this effort? MR. HOPKINS: I really don't think I'll have the time it takes that needs to be devoted to it, but -- CHAIRMAN: Well, I would think that -- MR. REHEIS: I figure a couple to three phone calls to get it right. Are you sure you don't have time? MR. HOPKINS: I mean, I will help you, but I just don't have the time to spend on like a subcommittee or something, but I'll -- CHAIRMAN: This is not a committee that's going to meet, it's just going to work. I think, Joe spends a lot of time on Capital Hill and knows the process well, he seems an obvious participant. I think it's -- MS. CABOT-SMETHURST: I would also suggest Steven or Bob Kerr Chairman of the PP (phonetic) who are politically very astute and have already done some paving of the way. CHAIRMAN: Harold, Bob, do you have SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### anybody else that's welcome to participate? We'll ask that you make a report in Greenville as to what the strategy is, and how we can help implement it. CHAIRMAN: All right. Anything further on that subject? We kind of jumped into the committee update process. Brock, have you figured out what you want to say? MR. NICHOLSON: Very quickly. Well, there was the last PC committee meeting in Knoxville, I'm not sure what day, I was not there, so I'll glean some of this out of the notes. The EMOs -- the so-called near-term EMOs that were not reported to the governing body for approval were, I guess, extensively discussed at that meeting. There were five of them, numbers 1, 2a, 2b7, and 3. 2a was dropped because it's very similar in nature to what we discussed today. The other four have essentially been reported back to the EMOs sub-work groups for rewording, reconsideration, and so forth and will be brought back up at a future -- MR. MILLER: I have not heard diddly squat about the report back on those EMOs most of which were in our subcommittee. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### MR. NICHOLSON: I believe this one's a benefit so we'll have to have some discussions here. The other one item I would just briefly mention is, that there was reference to completing a criteria document setting more definitive and consistent standards for producing EMOs, the write ups and so forth for those that are going to be particularly processed through the TOC. Particularly noting so that the TOC understands what the PC is actually -- policy committee, is actually asking for in the assessment. Beyond that, that's about where we are. CHAIRMAN: Good. Any questions for Brock or Bruce or other members of the policy committee? Okay, thank you. Doug, we may have gotten a pretty complete report on what you've been up to, but I know -- I'm interested in knowing -- you mentioned the contractors that -- whom we have on board, and so forth, so please give us a report from the TOC. MR.NEELEY: Doug Neeley with the TOC. We have about seven contracts underway right now. We have the acid deposition on aquatic for Oregon state and a professor there, by the name of Alan Herlahey (phonetic), and Rick Webb from the effects SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### EFAC's/EPAC's subcommittee is sort of overseeing that project. The "acid deposition interestial" is through Utah State Forestry Service and TVA within Kind services, and in that particular one, we have contracts with three different entities and that project is under way. The "ozone and its effects" is through Auburn University, and that's the money that we transferred over to the park service and Jim Renfrow (phonetic) is overseeing that project. Of the modeling that is underway, in Radian is doing that work, and Brenda Johnson, of my staff, is the work-assignment manager since that's one of the EPA LOE contractors. On the monitoring, that's the one we are doing in-house. EPA Region Four, along with the forestry service and some of our states, particularly George Murray with North Carolina, is helping on that. The emissions inventory and the visibility, statement of works are at the EPA contracting office. And hopefully within a couple of weeks, both of those contracts will be underway. The visibility is going to be with SAI and the emissions inventory is with Peckham. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### And then that brings us down to the one that we just discussed, and hopefully on May the 19th, we'll make a selection on a contractor to help us design the integrated assessment framework. And we should be able to get them on board pretty soon thereafter. The only thing that may slow that up a little bit, SAMI does have its 103 grant request into EPA. The staff has reviewed that and sent that up to our Grant's Management Group recommending that that grant be issued, so that should be issued within a couple of weeks. CHAIRMAN: And that would finally get us some money that's in our own bank account? MR. NEELEY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN: Good. MR. NEELEY: So you better have a good mechanism of how to write those checks because it will be in the SAMI bank account. MR. HOPKINS: How many folks currently are on SAMI's payroll? MS. COX: Three. MR. HOPKINS: How many folks from EPA -- Rebecca, I'm talking to you, you're working with SAMI, how many folks outside of SAMI are working on SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### SAMI as part of their job, government job, so to speak? CHAIRMAN: Do you mean outside of the permanent staff? MR. HOPKINS: Outside of the SAMI, direct staff. MS. COX: Well, I did an in-time estimate. Somewhere, I probably have the numbers of how many people that responded and some people didn't respond, so I used a general guesstimate, but I'd say at least 50. MR. HARWOOD: 50? MS. COX: No. Not all the time, but giving time, some more than others. Region Four has a lot of different people on their staff that do different things. You probably have what, about -- MR. NEELEY: This is Doug Neeley and I can answer from Region Four. Although, the way we've got it worked out, SAMI is really funding both Leslie and Rebecca. Both of them are EPA employees on an IPA, one to North Carolina and one to SAMI. And we did get SAMI on the list where they can accept an IPA, so she is definitely IPA to SAMI. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### And then, we probably put another additional two FTEs among a certain number of people into this project, because I know on my staff, I have at least one on it full time and then several others give it considerable amount of time. So that's from EPA Region Four. CHAIRMAN: Does that conclude your report? MR. NEELEY: Yes, unless anyone has any questions. CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you for your work. You all have been very busy. MR. REHEIS: Steve, I need a point of clarification. It just occurred to me, I'm not sure that we got clear on an issue a little bit ago. And that was the issue of merging the integrated assessment and the socioeconomic -- I think that was part of my act, my motion that I made, but then there was a discussion that Brian, said, no, that his group didn't agree that that was a good idea to merge. And you said, you want a report from the TOC as a recommendation or a game plan -- MR. MILLER: Yeah, that was my question. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### I thought I'd remembered you saying you wanted a report from the operations committee on how to resolve this issue. CHAIRMAN: Prior to the vote on how to handle the integrated assessment, I had asked that the operations committee make a recommendation to us at the Greenville meeting on how we -- maybe you did make a motion, I'm not sure. But, my request was that the operations committee report to us on recommendation or a series of options on how to address socioeconomic issues; that is, is it going to continue to be a work group that does that or is it going to be included in the integrated assessment? How do we be sure that we deliver it and I don't get letters next time saying we're not doing what we're supposed to be doing. I want to get the issue resolved. I don't report to have enough information to do it, so I've asked the operations committee to bring a recommendation to us on that issue. In addition to that, we did authorize the TOC to make a selection of a contractor for Phase I of the integrated assessment if produced on a consensus basis. If not, to bring the issue to the SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### operations committee. MR. REHEIS: So, is the issue of merging something that is needed for you to be able to go forward with selecting a contractor -- MR. NEELEY: No. No, I think at the Richmond meeting we didn't -- we didn't make a recommendation that the two groups should be merged, we just made the recommendation from the two groups that we needed to get us a contractor on board to help us get over this hurdle. MR. MILLER: So in summary do you still want the operations committee to come back to you with a game plan on how to solve this? CHAIRMAN: I want to be sure that we have a plan for moving forward to address socioeconomic issues, so that we don't have SAMI members of the view those issues are not being addressed. MR. MILLER: Not being addressed. I understand. MR. NEELEY: I was going to ask the same question before Harold brought it up, because I was -- MR. REHEIS: I was just making sure something wasn't just left on the table there for SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### misunderstanding. CHAIRMAN: All right. I appreciate it, we were jumping around a bit. MS. COX: Steve, while you were doing that, there was one thing that happened to be mentioned about the operations committee that I could update you on briefly. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MS. COX: As it relates to a lot of this discussion; that is, the contracting procedures, that subgroup, Alan, Angela, Rebecca, and myself were working on, and Rebecca has some new information on the contract that we'll be able to get to you soon about -- we're going to have to follow the EPA's requirement, and it spells out procedures for us and also, provides some specific exemptions for nonprofit groups. MS. KEMP: I'll be glad to elaborate on that. The grant money there is money that we are to get from EPA, will come with the stipulation that we either have: 1) procedures that are approved by EPA contracting folks or that we use CFR, Code of Federal Regulation 40, Section 33. And so, we have decided to go with that, rather than trying to write SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### all new procedures for EPA's approval, because there's no telling how long that would take. And I gave Leslie a copy of those procedures. So any moneys that we spend do have to follow those contracting or procurement procedures. And there are exemptions in there for nonprofit organizations. Everything that we have done to date does follow those procedures. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you for your work on that. The next item on our agenda is the air quality targets issue. Do we have -- where are our materials on that, Leslie? MS. COX: I gave those previously and I have extra copies here if you need them, but I didn't pass those out yet. CHAIRMAN: It's an issue we have worked on since last September. I have one somewhere in my file here. I thought that we had reached agreement last September on how we wanted to approach this issue. We seem to have had a very hard time in putting it down on paper. There is a position statement before us at the bottom of the first page and a motion to adopt that seems to be in order. If we get a motion on the table and seconded, then we SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### will discuss the motion. Is there a second to that motion? MR. GRUSNICK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN: All right. The motion is that we adopt the position statement at the bottom of the first page. Discussion of the motion? MS. KIMBALL: Yes, this is Suzette Kimball. Randy Phillips, unfortunately, just had to leave to catch a plane, but he left me a few written comments. And I feel that it's necessary to go on record from the perspective of the federal land managers that there are some difficulties with this statement, as it is written. Both of us, Randy and I, and the agencies we represent, feel strongly that SAMI really would benefit from having some sort of a measurable criteria against which progress on the EMOs can be measured, because otherwise, how do we know -- we're adopting EMOs, but it's just so much paperwork and good fellowship if we don't have a way to say what we're doing actually has a measurable benefit. Our concern that we wanted to put on the table is that the federal land management agencies have an affirmative responsibility to protect air SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### quality related values and that includes some aspect of adverse impact determinations, which are made on a case-by-case basis. Our concern is that the establishment of a binding criteria would -- that the federal land managers would not be able to satisfy a binding criteria established by SAMI because of our responsibilities for case-by-case determinations. The ways around it, of course, is that if these are adopted as measurement criteria for EMOs, as opposed to binding criteria for determinations, we could accept that kind of an approach, or alternatively, if the SAMI member constituencies were willing to establish the criteria using the standards that are established for Class 1 areas by federal land managers, then that would get around the problem as well. But we wanted to make sure this was an item that was discussed because we could see that we might come to some sort of difficulties down the road with this. CHAIRMAN: Let me take a shot and see if I understand the issue, I may have it all wrong. What I have understood the issue to be is that assume SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### that SAMI at the end adopts a set of recommendations and control strategies that are going to have a predicted -- to have a certain outcome on air quality related values and we're, therefore, trying to measure their success. Is your concern that the federal land managers not be bound by having endorsed those recommendations or not somehow stopped or prohibited from seeking to achieve more under your statutory mandates? Is that the concern -- some way to tie your hands in the ability to do your -- MS. KIMBALL: To do our mandated job, yes, because we're concerned that if SAMI establishes a target and the targets achieve that on a particular case-by-case basis, that target level may have been set too high or too low. I mean, too high in the case that it could be a problem for other industry or state regulators, but in our case, set too low for what we can determine to be an adverse impact on a particular case. That having signed onto it by being a signatory party to SAMI, could put us in a very compromising position relative to our mandate for affirmative responsibility. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### CHAIRMAN: Harold. MR. REHEIS: There's probably something I don't understand here, but my perception is that this word target is a misnomer and I'm not sure why we're using the word target. If you read the position, the position statement has nothing to do with targets. The position statement says, "If we determine that additional EMOs are needed to protect air quality values in the region, then we will evaluate those based on their ability to achieve real improvement in air quality and our decisions will be informed by scientific evaluations of the levels of reduction in air pollution that may be needed, as well as technical and economic feasibility." That doesn't say target anywhere. That just says, here's how we're going to look at EMOs. First, do we -- somehow a determination needs to be made that some EMO is needed to further reduce air pollutants and that should be based on the ability of the EMO to actually make an improvement. And second, we need to base it on science and an evaluation of technical and economic SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### feasibility. I don't understand how that, in any way, ties the hands of the federal land managers, and I don't understand that those are really criteria. Those are processes, we are not setting any criteria here. So I'm missing something. I guess, I just don't understand the discomfort of the federal land managers on this. CHAIRMAN: I'm not sure I do either, but in an attempt to address that discomfort, would it help if we added a sentence that said, at the end of this, "No action by SAMI, however, shall limit the authority of federal land managers to carry out their responsibilities under the clean air act." We're not trying to tie your hands, we're trying to make recommendations that we think make sense into established standards for evaluating. Brian. MR. MORTON: Harold, let me ask you, on your meeting of this position why then would it even be necessary as I heard you interpret, your direct interpretation of this policy, you seem to be saying this is basically common sense, rational approach to evaluating EMOs. I guess my question is then, for the sake SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### of argument, let us say that is so then, why have this resolution at all? CHAIRMAN: Well, we've been talking about it for so long, that nobody remembers why we started. MR. REHIES: Well, you know, my concept, my vision of where we were going with SAMI, going back to the meeting in Asheville in July of '93, my vision was, we've got to find out through predictions, through science, what kind of air quality improvements are we going to get in this region as result of implementing the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. And, through science and predictions, make an assessment of, are those improvements going to be enough to take care of the values that we're concerned about in the region, in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. And if they aren't, then we've got a basis for saying what else do we need to do? And also through looking at technical economic and socioeconomic impacts, technical economic feasibility, we can come to determination of what would the impacts be of doing more than is required SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### under the Clean Air Act of 1990. That remains my vision and that's my personal vision. I don't know how many other people who are involved in this process share that. But I'm going to stick to that one as long as I'm in SAMI, and that's the vision I'm going to be pursuing and trying to make happen through my membership here. And if there is general agreement among the members of the governing body to that vision, then we probably don't need this position statement to be adopted. And I don't remember where the position came from in the first place. CHAIRMAN: I can shed a little bit of light on that. I don't remember how it came to us. And maybe I should let this thing die or maybe I should let the motion die for lack of a second and not sought one. But the issue was this, the issue that we talked about initially when this came forward was whether our goal was to establish some measure of scientific or ecological perfection and try to achieve that was what the target was, which may be what the federal land manager's mission is. "No man-made impairment of air quality related values;" SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### is that your statutory mission? MS. KIMBALL: Yes. CHAIRMAN: And we're trying to figure out what a number is that corresponds to that and get there, and the strong sense of the governing body was that is not SAMI's mission. SAMI's mission is to achieve what protections and improvements we can achieve in a reasonable way and then we can reach consensus about. But once we decide to try to achieve some goal, then it needs to be measurable and that we're not just out there without any way to evaluate whether we're accomplishing what we set out to do. And so it was an attempt to establish that second course and distinguish it from the first. And the only objection that I heard was the federal land managers wanted to be sure that, if they have a -- I'll say a more aggressive mission under their statutes and charters, that they not in any way be compromised by anything anticipated from SAMI from doing what they're required to do. It may be that this whole issue has now run its course. And if there's not a strong argument from somebody around this table as to why SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### we need a position statement on this subject, I'd be quite happy to let the issue die a much deserved death. MR. MILLER: I guess we'd say it this way, as long as everybody agrees with Harold's vision, we're comfortable. MR. DAMBERG: Let me ask a question, do statements of work for the effects -- statements today -- is one of the items is that they need to produce this number? CHAIRMAN: No. We want our decisions to be informed by their research and the best information about effects, but ultimately, we're going to have to make a balancing decision about what we recommend, and what it's likely to achieve and what its cost will be. I would tell you right now that I don't think it's going to be no man-made impact on AQRV. MS. KIMBALL: From the federal land manager's perspective, we certainly buy into the vision of SAMI as articulated by Harold, and have no problem with that. We don't have a problem with the concept of the strong science based EMOs and measurable criteria by which we judge whether or not SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### the EMOs are approaching the vision that we're trying to aim. The only concern is, and it may be a semantic concern, but the concept of establishing a target that would -- that concept, if we establish a target figure, that there is an implication that, if the target figure is achieved, then everything's okay, there will be no adverse impact determinations. And we can't make that promise. And that's the real underlying concern. As far as the vision goes, we are behind it as far as science based EMOs and scientifically based measurement criteria we're behind those. MR. MORTON: Steve, just an assurance of -- do we need this to make day-to-day progress with the socioeconomics or with any other part of the integrated assessment plan framework, or the technical work that is being done, and that answer is no. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Good. Let's let move on. We have some new -- MS. KIMBALL: Sir, do we need to take a motion off the table or just not call the question? CHAIRMAN: I think that we'll just not SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### call that question. CHAIRMAN: Okay. The motion is withdrawn. MR. REHEIS: I second it. CHAIRMAN: On the back of your agenda there is a revised list of new committee members for our approval. MS. COX: I have one correction. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MS. COX: Where I listed West Virginia's nominees, I've listed them both as nominees to the public advisory committee, but John H. Johnston is their recommendation for the policy committee. Their previous person, Carl Dedinger (phonetic) is no longer on the policy committee, so that would be a replacement. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Is there a motion that we approve these nominees? MS. ANDREWS: So moved. MR. REHEIS: I second it. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion? If not, all in favor say aye. GOVERNING BODY: Aye. CHAIRMAN: Opposed? GOVERNING BODY: No response. SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### CHAIRMAN: Motion carried. Welcome to SAMI. I did mention at the outset that Chris is the new Virginia appointee to the operations committee. That's a Virginia decision that doesn't require any action on our part, but we're glad to have you aboard and to be working with you. As you know, I undertook to address several items of new business in the middle of our discussion. Are there other items that need to be brought forward at this time? We got to most of the ones on my list. Leslie, do you think that we need to say about planning for the Greenville meeting? MS. COX: Well, I hope to have something out in the next couple of weeks to give you final information on that, but it is coming together. South Carolina is doing a lot of work with us on that. CHAIRMAN: June 9th and 10th. MS. COX: Correct. What we were going to do is try and start that meeting on the 8th with an icebreaker that evening, and for the afternoon, we can come in for early registration and have an optional tour of BMW, if you'd like to work that out with Gary Wynrick (phonetic), or for the avid SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### golfers since we are in a golfing territory, there is a golf game available. If you want to come in early you can decide. The business will begin on the 9th and 10th CHAIRMAN: Good. Any other business to come before us today? MS. KIMBALL: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to present -- we were able to get copies of the memoranda of understanding of, I think, Tennessee and Virginia and park service. CHAIRMAN: Oh, good. MS. KIMBALL: To be distributed as you see fit. MR. HOPKINS: I will say that was signed under a previous administration under stress. MS. KIMBALL: That's true, it was. CHAIRMAN: You haven't denounced it yet, have you? We'll send these around. And as these come around, let me thank you all for your attendance and participation. It was a very productive meeting and we look forward to seeing you in Greenville. There are copies of Deborah Amaral's -- I've got six copies of the UNC class report on SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### visibility. And I get to keep one, so there are only five. Am I offering these up -- have these all been committed, Brock? MR. NICHOLSON: No. CHAIRMAN: There are a few -- anymore in existence, Deborah? MS. AMARAL: Yes, there are. CHAIRMAN: It's -- just from thumbing through it, it's a very impressive piece of work by a group of graduate students, so I encourage you to take look at it. I assume most of you are headed home for the weekend, but if anybody's planning to be around late and needs any advice on how to spend your time profitably, I'd be happy to give you some tips. Thanks very much for coming, the meeting is adjourned. (MEETING ADJOURNED AT 2:56 P.M.) SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING Page ##### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) COUNTY OF GRANVILLE ) I, CARLENE M. BLOSS, Court Reporter and Notary Public duly and qualified in and for the State of North Carolina I further certify that the foregoing transcript is a true and correct transcript of my original stenographic notes. I further certify that I am neither attorney or counsel for, nor related to or employed by any of the parties to the action in which this deposition is taken; and furthermore, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto or financially interested in the action. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Notarial Seal this 15th day of May, 1994. ÐÐ ÃÃ ÄÄ CARLENE M. BLOSS NOTARY PUBLIC