Well, it has happened: the Port of Los Angeles has adopted a Clean Truck Program that will require port truck drayage drivers to become employees, while a few weeks ago our own port here in Long Beach adopted one without this requirement.
The vote at Thursday’s LA Harbor Commission meeting was unanimous (one of the five Commissioners was absent). Long Beach Harbor Commission President Mario Cordero was present for the first ninety minutes of the meeting. He spoke briefly at the start, saying that the ports might disagree on some issues, but they intended to continue their partnership, and in fact have a joint meeting next Monday to vote on adopting new cleaner-fuel incentives for ships.
Nearly forty commenters spoke, almost all in favor of the plan. Los Angeles City Councilmember Janice Hahn urged Commissioner Cordero to return to Long Beach and “do the right thing,” accusing Long Beach of “breaking faith” with Los Angeles over this issue. Many truck drivers testified (most in Spanish) about how proud and happy they were with this plan that would make them employees; one called it “perfect.” Some speakers, including Councilmember Hahn and Port of Oakland Commissioner Margaret Gordon, said that labor and environment were linked and could not be separated, as has been done in Long Beach’s program.
The scant amount of opposing testimony should not be taken to mean that there is little disagreement with the Los Angeles truck plan. The Intermodal Motor Carriers Conference of the American Trucking Associations released a three-paragraph statement for the record that ends with the words, “See you in court.”
A word about how Los Angeles and Long Beach differ on this point. There’s no question that reducing emissions from the truck fleet will be very costly – roughly $2 billion. Using funds from a variety of sources, both ports are ready to commit money towards this effort, which will also entail private investments. Los Angeles believes the only way to assure accountability for the funds and eliminate the need for another massive public expenditure to upgrade trucks again in a few years is to provide the funds only to trucking companies, and only once they have obtained a port operating concession. Long Beach, on the other hand, plans to offer funds to either trucking companies or individual truck owner-drivers. Its plan offers several options to assist in turning over the truck fleet, which now consists primarily of owner-operators.
Since adopting the joint Clean Air Action Plan in late 2006, the two ports seem to have been in agreement that they ought not to compete on matters relating to environmental protection, though they might compete mightily in other ways. Ports in the Pacific Northwest have likewise taken a collaborative approach to their clean air efforts. So what does it mean for clean air now that our ports have parted ways on their truck programs?
Clearly a lawsuit will ensue. In fact, the Cunningham Report this week speculated that we could be at the start of a “lawsuit-palooza” over this and several other port-related disputes, including the recent legal threat to Long Beach and the still-up-in-the-air TraPac Terminal EIR.
My worry all along has been that disagreement over the structure of the ports’ trucking plan (even if they had a single plan rather than two) would lead to litigation that will delay implementation and progress towards cleaner air. If the trucking industry sues Los Angeles, it stands to reason that at least portions of their program would not go forward. (The Journal of Commerce indicates that the trucking industry also feels parts of Long Beach’s plan are illegal.) For example, both ports included in their plans a $35 container fee intended to help fund the purchase of cleaner trucks. But if there’s no agreement on who will be able to receive these funds, then I doubt either port will be able to begin collecting the fees as planned for October 1 of this year.
The only good that could come of a lawsuit, in my view, is that we might finally get answers to some of these interesting and vexing questions. Attorneys and judges could parse the arguments on both sides of the employee-trucker model and finally rule on what actions are truly within the ports’ jurisdiction.
In the meantime, the California Air Resources Board’s statewide port truck regulation will take effect in 2009 whether or not the San Pedro Bay disputes have been resolved. It’s my hope that before then, responsible businesses will seize the initiative and find creative ways to replace trucks whether or not a local or state program has yet taken effect. The need for cleaner air, right away, is crystal-clear already.