lbpost.com managing editor Ryan ZumMallen recently let me know that he had received a detailed response to my last post on State Sen. Dean Florez’s recent hearing on port air quality. It is presented below. When I originally agreed to write for the lbpost.com, I had a vision for an online forum for discussion of critical issues related to goods movement and community effects, both good and bad. It is impossible for me to present all points of view on these complex issues, and I am always pleased when readers comment, briefly or extensively, on my posts. I hope that this piece will prompt the expression of additional views on the pace of air quality improvements or on related issues.
*
Having attended the Senate Air Quality Informational Hearing on what the Ports are doing to reduce impacts on the local communities, I have to say that Nancy Pfeffer did a fine job in summarizing what occurred at the meeting in her article “Slow and Steady Progress on Port Air Quality.” I would like to take the next step and make observations on what wasn’t said, but should have. Since there was no representation from the industry it seems appropriate that some forum be provided.
Let’s start with Senator Florez’s opening statement where his intention was to determine what was in the tool box to address air quality issues. Nancy’s basic observation was not enough was being done quickly enough. I disagree. In fact every technology available today is already in use. That includes advanced engine technology, cleaner fuels, after combustion treatment, and operational measures like slowing down vessels and deploying modern larger vessel for increased economies of scale. The technologies that were called for don’t yet exist in the market place, they are future requirements mandated by the U.S. EPA and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to force the development of the cleaner engines while allowing the necessary development time. This is the usual tried and true approach that has been responsible for automobiles being 99-percent cleaner and next years heavy duty diesel trucks being 95-percent cleaner than those sold only a few years ago.
The overall result, according to the most recent inventory of the Port of Los Angeles, is emissions are down at the Ports by approximately 30% for diesel particulates and sulfur oxides from 2005 levels. The percent contribution to the regional air quality is down from nine percent to 7 percent. More importantly, as a measure of efficiency and sustainability, green house gases are down by four percent and emissions generated per unit of cargo are down from 23% to 35% for criteria pollutants, the ones measured for attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards of the Clean Air Act. I know of no other sector that can claim these levels of air quality improvement over this short a time frame. Clearly the “slow” doesn’t apply, as to the “steady” we all agree there is significant improvements still need to be made. But the maritime industry has been, and will continue to take a leadership role in reducing air emission.
Not only is the maritime industry using all the tools currently available they are responsible for demonstrating many of the technologies that are now currently required by regulation. The California Air Resource Board (CARB) Shore Power regulation and the lease requires of the Ports was made possible by the voluntary efforts of the shipping industry demonstrating the feasibility. Similarly, vessels demonstrated the use of low-sulfur diesel fuels years before CARB passed a regulation and long after the industry called for international regulations that have now been approved. Voluntary incentive programs to retrofit cargo handling equipment became the model for the CARB regulation that went into effect in 2007. The voluntary vessel speed reduction that began in 2001 is now being considered by CARB as a future regulation. In short the industry has been a pathfinder, not a follower.
Another fact that was omitted last week was that some of these regulations have actually created obstacles to the development of technologies discussed at the hearing. The same shore power regulation only allows for connection to grid based electricity precludes the use of any other technology. The fact that the “bonnet” technology was not available prior to July 1, 2009, eliminated its use under the regulation. That same deadline has effectively created a disincentive for any new technology to go into use. The result is extensive infrastructure has to be developed at the ports in California, at a tremendous cost, ships have to be retrofitted or built to use that infrastructure and there is no requirement to do so prior to 2014. Worse, there is no incentive for the industry to invest in any other innovative technology since it cannot be used for regulatory compliance.
The need for additional funding was another topic of discussion. Not discussed is the Ports and the South Coast Air Quality Management District have already received and spent tens of millions of dollars on replacing trucks. This is a good thing but the wisdom of using most of the allocated federal stimulus dollars and California 1B bonds funds on sources that we, the taxpayers, will be paying for long after they have become scrap metal should be questioned. Especially since there is a CARB regulation that goes into effect January 1, 2010 that mimics the requirements of the Clean Truck Programs, resulting in any benefits derived from the accelerated turnover of trucks having only a short lifespan before they will be required by regulation. A basic tenet of every incentive clean air program is you don’t pay to comply, you only provided funding in advance of, or in excess to any regulatory requirement. The ports are now saying they hope there will be additional funds made available so that they can invest them in developing the shore side infrastructure necessary to comply with the CARB regulation. Let’s hope they succeed because this type of long term infrastructure development is the type of application that bond funds are traditionally used.
This leads me to the final point of what wasn’t discussed last week, cost effectiveness. The point was made that even with all of the state bond funds and federal stimulus dollars there simply isn’t enough money to fund all of the measures needed and that there are many interests that are competing for those same dollars. In the absence of adequate funds you might expect at least some discussion of what measures should be pursued to ensure the maximum air quality benefits for the lowest possible costs. No such discussion occurred. More and more we see the perfect being the enemy of the good. Shore power is great but I firmly believe that greater air quality benefits could be achieved earlier and more cost effectively if only the industry was given an emission goal and then allowed to find the best way to get there. After all that has been the history of environmental regulation, set a standard, allow some development time, and let the affected industry find the solution that works best. Recently the trend has been to select a favored technology and require its use with little consideration of the cost. Unfortunately, last week’s hearing appears to be a continuation of that trend. We deserve better, but how to get there remains the question. I heard no answers, worse, I heard no real discussion.
T.L. Garrett
Vice President
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association