Epstein questions Lacertosa on pump exemptions and cleaner technology

I recognize Councilmember Epstein.

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank the panel for being here.

Sorry, I don't remember your name, sir.

It's Rocco Lesher.

Of Rocco.

So I'd love to hear why you think these exemptions are going to help the environment by exempting more trucks from the law.

Like what environmental advantages do you see we're going to have by that?

First of all, there's no...

You got to use the microphone.

Yeah.

There is no way to affect the delivery without the truck running, okay, because the engine operates the pump.

So it's just as simple as that, okay?

The regen process is part of what they do now.

I'm just saying about the environmental benefits.

I just really wanted to check what environmental benefits you think this bill will have.

I just don't think that it helps our industry whatsoever.

I mean, we're already delivering a much cleaner project, which is what I was starting to say before about having biodiesel and renewable diesel blended with

with our heating oil, and we've reduced tons of emissions from New York City's air over the last two decades.

Which is great.

So we're saying we want to reduce emissions in our air.

We keep doing it.

We're going to higher blends.

Right.

But when you're saying this bill, you want to create more exemptions in the bill.

How does that create cleaner air?

I don't know that it does one way or the other.

But all I can tell you is that there is no way to make a delivery without using a pump.

So basically, the current technology doesn't allow a system to operate the pump without the engine being on.

And there's no system available now that allows that to happen?

No.

And you're saying technologies have a path forward on this?

I don't design trucks.

You don't design trucks.

It's above my pay grade.

That's right.

So it's possible that technology is out there.

It could be.

And that trucks can move towards that technology.

And that may reduce the environmental consequences as well as the idling issue.

Absolutely.

Because people are only, you're saying they're only idling now is because they have to because they want the pump to work.

Right.

So if there's a technology that was available that allowed them to not idle while the pump was working, you could certainly use it.

So it doesn't seem like changing the law to allow more idling would make sense, except maybe allowing, figuring out their technology exists to allow the pump to work without idling.

That would be correct.

Yeah, great.

So I've

This is one of the other panelists.

The other panelists seem to be not supportive of this bill.

Am I going down?

Like, are we saying that the change in this law would hurt the environmental regulations, hurt the environment, increase particulate matters?

Is that what I hear you all saying?

You're nodding.

You can maybe just articulate that in the mic because we need to have it on the record.

Well, I think the implementation would not allow the kind of improvement you could get from a proper bill.

That the exemptions would undermine it, basically.

So the exemptions in the bill could undermine the whole intent of the law?

Correct.

Right.

And so...

It does seem like with the chair's goal here is to try to make an industry viable, which we all want to do.

We don't want to undermine this industry without undermining the environment at the same time.

So there's got to be some path, which is what I hear people talking about, of maybe changing the way the industry functions, but also without undermining the good goals and all that.

Do you want to?

Go ahead.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, I just think with a number of the exceptions, as I mentioned in my testimony, I feel like they make the program inoperable.

It's more than just increasing idling or increasing pollution.

I don't think complainants, you know, everyday New Yorkers who are filming videos of idling trucks are going to be able to tell if they're doing diesel regeneration or if their auxiliary battery-powered unit is working or if they have a mechanical problem.

I'm not even sure what that is.

And I think DEP will similarly struggle.

So I think it makes the program inoperable in addition to increasing pollution.

So I do also want to ask the panel, we've heard from written testimony from DEP that they are concerned about the volume of complaints that are coming in and the quality of some of those videos that are being sent in.

We'd love to hear from this panel about additional solutions that might be available to streamline that process.

Obviously, the chair and people in the committee will have the ability to increase funding, but also what other solutions might be available to deal with the quality of the videos coming in.

Before the answer comes forward, I just want to tell Councilmember Epstein that, you know, we've got a five-minute clock for council members, which I didn't set, but I certainly want this answer.

I certainly want your question answered.

Good.

Thank you, Chad.

I'll be done after this.

You bet.

I'm a casual participant in this program and have basically stumbled on ways to be able to submit videos.

Most of my videos have been accepted, and I really appreciate the community of other people who are also submitting these videos, who provide guidance and coaching to make sure that the quality is good.

Nobody wants to be wasting DEP's time.

We don't want to be submitting false claims.

We want to be doing good work.

And there's a community of people who have been doing this for years who are very generous with their time and are happy to share best practices and tips and tricks to make this work better.

So making that more publicly available might be helpful.

Absolutely.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member, for some great questioning.