Attending

SAMI Members

Tom Elmore, Jake Gilmer, Krishnan Kandasamy, Leslie Montgomery, Anita Rose, and Ira Silverburg

ICF Consulting Staff

Will Schroeer

Others

Lynorae Benjamin and Alan Powell

Summary

The meeting was called to order on July 6, 2000 at 2:30 P.M. on an EPA conference line.

Energy Efficiency and Phase I Preliminary Report

Several members of the committee ask Will Schroeer when there would be a call to discuss incentive levels for energy efficiency. Mr. Schroeer responded that there have been some delays in preparing the emissions data for energy efficiency analysis and therefore the call would occur in the upcoming weeks. He explained that next week ICF would send a memo to SAMI in order to expedite a resolution of the data situation. Mr. Schroeer also noted that due to the delays, the Phase I Preliminary Report would be completed later than was previously expected.

Demand Response of Analysis Models

Will Schroeer ask the committee to broadly define their expectations of the emissions models that ICF will use for transportation analysis. In particular, he ask how aggressive should the pricing or stringency levels be set for the emission reduction strategies? Ira Silverburg responded that the levels of implementation should be reasonable and achievable, yet should be aggressive enough to bring about a meaningful emissions reduction. Tom Elmore noted that the strategy emissions reductions would need to be significant (10%-30%) in order for them to be detected by the integrated assessment. Krishnan Kandasamy further noted that the emissions reductions might need to be as high as 30%-40% in order to have significance in the integrated assessment. Overall, the committee agreed that the strategies should be designed for a moderately aggressive to aggressive demand response.

Recommended Strategy Stringency Levels

Will Schroeer presented to the committee a Recommendations Table, on which he proposed analysis levels and areas of applicability for each transportation strategy. He explained that he would like for the committee to provide feedback on the recommendations and set an analysis level for each of the strategies. The proposed table is below:

Recommendations

Strategy	Recommended analysis level	Recommended area of applicability
1. Increase Parking Pricing	Employees: $3/day Non-employee: $.60/hr, $3/day max	All urban areas
2. Increase Gas Tax	$.50/gallon	All VMT
3. VMT-Based Pricing	$0.02/mile	All VMT
4. Transit, Bike, & Pedestrian-Oriented Development	Aggressive design applied to new development in select urban areas; Moderate retrofit to existing development in same selected urban areas	Select urban areas
5. Employer-Provided TDM Programs	Moderate: public awareness campaign, 50% of all office employees eligible to telecommute; program mandatory for new office employers. All employers required to participate in regional rideshare program.	All urban areas over a certain size, to be decided. SAMI input welcome.
6. Lower Transit Fares & Improve Service	Average fare falls by 50%, and service improves by 25%	All urban areas
7. Aggressive AFV Program	SAMI suggests penetration rate	All urban areas
8. Increase Ridesharing-Oriented Infrastructure	Increase HOV and rideshare infrastructure by same %age that Atlanta proposed increasing its HOV network, via add-a-lane.	All urban areas with HOV lanes today.
9. Clean Diesel Fuel Technology	SAMI suggests penetration rate	All large urban areas
10. Inspection and Maintenance (I&M)	SAMI suggests penetration rate	All large urban areas

Committee Comments on Recommendations

The committee discussed each of the strategies and set the following analysis levels:

1. Parking Pricing: same as proposed

2. Increase Gas Tax: same as proposed

3. VMT-Based Pricing: change to $0.10 per mile

4. Transit, Bike, & Pedestrian Development: same as proposed

5. Employer-Provided TDM Programs: same as proposed

6. Lower Transit Fares & Improve Service: same as proposed

7. Aggressive AFV Program: ICF bring proposal and poll SAMI

8. Increase Ridesharing Infrastructure: same as proposed

9. Clean Diesel Technology: 50% by 2010 and 100% by 2040 in public sector

10. Inspection and Maintenance (I&M): model enhanced I&M per literature

Tom Elmore noted that the urban areas of applicability should be consistent in order to facilitate comparison of strategies. Will Schroeer agreed and stated that he would use Metropolitan Statistical Areas for the area of applicability.

Action Items

· ICF will send a memo to SAMI during the week of July 9, 2000 in order to clarify the energy efficiency emission factor situation

· Will Schroeer will circulate a list of MSA’s to use as areas of analysis

· Will Schroeer will propose levels of analysis for AFV Program model analysis for SAMI

· Jake Gilmer will poll a wider SAMI audience regarding the desired level of analysis for AFV Program model analysis

· Jake Gilmer will schedule and announce a PAC conference call for Thursday, July 27, 2000 which will discuss energy efficiency levels of analysis and finalize the transportation levels

The meeting was adjourned at 3:50 P.M.