OROVILLE — BayTEC Alliance presented its case to the community for the long-term future of Oroville Thursday evening, spreading out an ambitious plan and answering the public’s questions.

Addressing a full Southside Community Center, BayTEC Alliance members explained how the current interest in sustainability, coupled with government stimulus money, could make Oroville the “cleantech” capital of Northern California in the future.

Opportunities exist in cleantech, described as the products and services to answer environmental problems. Businesses could be attracted to Oroville — or started here — involved in cleantech and providing jobs for the area.

After the two-hour meeting, the alliance boldly called for volunteers for five task forces that would address issues facing Oroville’s economic well-being.

And people came forward.

The task forces will address regulatory streamlining and public policy, infrastructure, business incentives, higher education and training, and K-14 education. They will meet monthly.

Work done in these areas would be laying the foundation for the future, said Virginia Walker of the Jamison Group, consultants working with BayTEC Alliance and part of a family of Oroville-raised professionals.

This was the first time the general public had a chance to comment on the idea of Oroville as a cleantech center, as well as seeing who’s behind the project.

Thurman Hodge of Oroville knew about problems with the permitting process in his food business.

“These are great ideas. I hope the process goes smoothly,” he said.

As a nursing student at Butte College, Nicole Cumbuss of Oroville said she was concerned that “outsiders” would get the jobs, coming from other communities or being brought in by companies that might settle in Oroville. She wanted to make sure cooperation among various sectors in the community was stressed. Cumbuss said she planned to sign up for the education and training task force.

Cary Yasuhara, a county employee, wanted to know the steps and timeline involved to help Oroville reach these goals.

“If we don’t act now, other regions are going to get (stimulus) money,” Yasuhara said.

Kirk Short, owner of Elite Solar, a solar contractor, wanted to hear about possible loans for his customers.

“I hope there’s follow-up. I hope things happen,” he said.

Other members of the audience voiced their concerns about the funding of the projects and processes being transparent to the public.

A question was asked about funding to help businesses. Walker said she has been talking to a bank about financing, as well as the alliance looking into grants. One woman didn’t want to see wind turbines on Oroville’s foothills. Another speaker wondered how he could get access to training to be ready for possible jobs.

BayTEC Alliance is a regional group of Butte County public and private sector members working with the Jamison Group. The latter is owned by individuals — Glen and Charles Toney and their sister, Walker. The Toney family came to Oroville in the mid-1940s, but the children left for opportunities in the Bay Area.

“Wouldn’t it be wonderful if our students didn’t have to leave home like they did to find jobs?” asked Gary Ott, who chairs BayTEC Alliance.

Environmentalists and industry representatives pleaded their case with federal regulators Tuesday over rules that would slash toxic emissions from cement kilns, the top source of mercury emissions in California.

The Environmental Protection Agency issued proposed regulations for Portland cement kilns earlier this year, after more than a decade of pressure from environmental groups. The rules aim to reduce the industry’s mercury emissions by an estimated 81% to 93% annually, as well as cut emissions of hydrocarbons, particulate matter and hydrochloric acid.

The EPA projects that the changes could save billions of dollars and hundreds of lives a year, but cement industry officials say they will drive up the price of cement, and possibly drive the industry to countries that have lower pollution standards.

The rules would “undermine the stability of the domestic cement industry, endangering thousands of jobs and the supply of a basic construction material for uncertain environmental benefits,” Andy O’Hare, a spokesman for the Portland Cement Assn., told EPA officials at the hearing in downtown Los Angeles.

“This regulation will help all Californians breathe easier, particularly the dozens of California communities neighboring cement kilns,” Otana Jakpor, a Riverside high school student speaking for the American Lung Assn., told the EPA panel. “It will reduce hundreds of thousands of tons of toxic chemicals that harm young people. And it will do so with technology that already exists. . . . As a young person who lives in an area with some of the worst air pollution in the country, I feel especially passionate about this.”

Portland cement kilns, which produce the key ingredient in concrete, account for 90% of the state’s airborne mercury, which can affect the nervous system, cognitive function and kidneys, and can cause respiratory failure and death at high exposures, according to the EPA.

Cement kilns emit hazardous chemicals as they burn coal, petroleum coke or industrial waste to heat raw materials including limestone ore, which also can contain mercury and other elements. The process produces “clinker,” which is cooled, ground and mixed with gypsum. In 2008, high levels of the toxic carcinogen hexavalent chromium were traced to piles of clinker outside the TXI Riverside cement plant, which has since shut down.

“We think of California as not having coal-fired power plants, but we really do,” said Miriam Rotkin-Ellman, a scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We have these cement kilns that basically operate as small coal-fired power plants, and some of them aren’t so small.”

California is the nation’s largest producer of cement, and houses 11 of the nation’s 163 Portland cement plants, including the Lehigh Southwest plant in Tehachapi, which has historically been one of the industry’s worst mercury polluters.

The EPA is accepting public comments on the proposed rules through Sept. 4. A second hearing will take place in Dallas today and a third in Washington on Thursday.

People living near the Port of Oakland may soon breathe easier after the Port Commission on Tuesday voted to ban trucks that burn dirty diesel fuel.

The ban, part of a $15.2 million comprehensive truck management program for the port that takes effect Jan. 1, 2010, restricts truck models older than 1994, as well as models from 1994 to 2006 not equipped with soot filters. Later-model trucks have much cleaner emissions technology than those of previous years.

The proposal passed 5-1, with Commissioner Anthony Batarse the lone vote in opposition.

“Now we can tell members of the community that dirty trucks will not be entering the port,” said Aditi Vaidya of the Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports, which supported the ban.

“We are really proud of the Port Commission. It (the ban) shows the port has taken concrete action and a solid first step to address air pollution that affects both truckers and the community.”

Vaidya and her group of environmental and social justice activists filled the port’s meeting room in Jack London Square along with other members of the public. Some 20 residents commented on the proposals.

The California Air Resources Board has ruled that dirty trucks will be illegal at the port starting next year, but it is up to the port to enforce the ruling on the estimated 2,000 trucks passing through it daily. The board had postponed a decision on the ban at its June 2 meeting.

On Tuesday, a procession of truck drivers and trucking company representatives pledged support for clean air standards. “We, as a company, will be 100 percent compliant by Jan. 1,” said David Naples, one of the owners of Bay Area-based Progressive Transportation Services.

Citing what they say are compelling reasons for the bans, environmentalists point to a 2008 study by the board that found more than 3 million people have a potential elevated cancer risk because of exposure to diesel emissions at the port.

The Port of Los Angeles adopted a plan involving a registry and progressive truck ban in October and has seen an air quality improvement of 25 percent to 35 percent, according to representatives of that port.

Bay Area air-quality regulators, environmentalists and some neighbors say the Port of Oakland should do more to improve air quality ahead of the regulatory deadlines.

Critics say the Oakland port has lagged behind the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports, which have adopted freight container fees to fund clean-air measures, and adopted their own bans ahead of the state’s deadline.

“I’m relieved,” said Vaidya, adding that the move demonstrated the leadership of Executive Director Omar Benjamin, Commission President Victor Uno, Commissioner Margaret Gordon, and the entire board.

The Oakland port is spending $5 million to help finance retrofitting trucks at the port along with a $5 million grant from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.