State Senator Alan Lowenthal Tells Ports of LB/L.A. Their Draft Clean Air Action Plan Is Laudable...But Needs Container Fee For Revenue (SB 760) And Statutory Teeth For Enforcement (SB 764)

Sen. Lowenthal: First, I want to commend both the Ports for proposing a Clean Air Action Plan that's based upon an operating principle that clean air is not an option but a necessity, and I really want to compliment [the Ports].

Our region pays a significant health care cost for funneling well over a third of our nation's imported goods through these Ports and while I've been personally working on issues of clean air in our region for over fifteen years as an elected official, I'm excited to see within the last few years others join me.

But I'd like to make some comments that I think can strengthen what we have, and I think this is a great first step. The first issue is, how will the Clean Air Action Plan be realistically funded, that's the first issue. In other words, show me the money. I want to know where the money is and what's specific.

You know, while you showed us what the Ports will pay, and the AQMD, which is about $400 million, I believe in the report itself, to reach the goals that you've said, the estimated amounts are somewhat in excess of, or around, or slightly in excess of about $2 billion to reach the overall goals that you have said. As you know, you are counting on a lot of the bond, and as a person who worked on the bond, to write the bond, I would make sure that within the bond that the first call on the air quality, the $1 billion in air quality improvements that are related to goods movement, that the first call be on those projects that have significant match of funds, that there must be a match that's built in to it.

So the bond provides for a billion dollars for air quality improvements for goods movement, let's say where, and in estimates in the papers and press, the Ports are asking for, would like to see as much as $800 million. Well, we're still talking about, we're short, almost $800 million, it's almost between $800 [million] and a billion. And if we take the ARB which has more ambitious goals, we could be short $4-$5 billion, is really what we're talking about what the Air Board estimates to really deal with a much more comprehensive, not just the Port but the entire system of goods movement, we're talking about potentially an excess of $6 billion.

So, what we're really saying is that if the state and the public, the people here, are going to pay almost a billion dollars out of public funds, then the private sector which benefits from the use of this infrastructure must be a full financial partner in the implementation of the Clean Air Action Plan in order for it to be successfully implemented, and if we don't have these sources of money coming in, we have some serious issues.

I have a bill, one of the bills that I'm proposing and that I would like to see supported, which incorporates industry in every level of the process. As our partner, they will help to identify some of these key air pollution projects but they will also pay for a part of that cost. SB 760 calls for a container fee to pay for the infrastructure improvements, port security and air quality. It is a major step forward. If we're really sincere about cleaning up our air, we must have everyone come to the table and pay, and SB 760 is an important first step in ensuring that there's industry participation in the funding of this to be successful.

Because what happens if the bond fails? Because this is predicated, what we've heard, on port expansion, port development. If the bond fails, God forbid, because I'm definitely out there encouraging everybody to support the bond, but if it fails, what funding in addition with this growth, besides the Ports' $400 million, are we going to have? We need the industry also to participate, because with only $400 million, pollution will increase. Let's be clear. We're not going to reduce the pollution if we have these limited resources. And the Ports are doing their share. It is not to penalize the Ports. They can't do it alone.

And so for that too, SB 760 remains a viable source of funding for this Action Plan. It's a necessity. It's based upon the assumption that taxpayers must pay their fair share but so does the industry have to pay and we have to have that clearly defined.

The other issue is we have these goals [in the Clean Air Action Plan] and we have measures, but how do we build in accountability to this. While tariffs, incentives, lease requirements are really what the Ports can do, and they're very good ideas, there is no accountability in the sense that while we call for significant reductions, while the Plan calls for significant reductions in pollutants, what happens if we don't reach these goals. What happens if we don't get the funding and pollution continues and increases?

We have to build in to any of our plans, if we're investing billions of dollars, accountability. Everyone must be accountable and we must have put into statute, another bill, SB 764 does, we must put into statute quantifiable air quality standards which must be attained by 2010 which allows for the disbursement of these public funds, but if not attained, there must be significant financial penalties.

We cannot tolerate after 2010 any increase, we must begin to demonstrate as a first step that we're beginning to bring that pollution down. We cannot simply dole out billions of dollars and not reduce the pollution.

And everyone must pay for their fair share and that we must have accountability built in.

In conclusion, I'm the chair of the Senate Committee on Transportation. I'm responsible for guiding, at least in the California Senate, the implementation of our state's transportation policy which includes maritime transportation policy, which must include what kinds of overall infrastructure and air quality needs we're going to have for the next several decades. We must have, I believe, not only the reductions that we're talking about, but within our plans an overall goal of moving towards zero-emission transportation systems and moving ultimately towards zero-emission vehicles. Without this, we will have a growing economy which is not a sustainable economy and inevitably it will fail.

And so what I urge us to do is to see this as a first step, that whatever we fund must be the steps along the way, with definable goals, for ultimately reaching us and helping us move toward zero-emission.

And I believe built into it, we must hold our feet to the fire by having SB 764 which defines a performance standard, and sets a goal and says there will be consequences and we must have the industry as a full partner right up front to do that, or else we are telling people we are going to succeed and we're not going to succeed because there's not enough resources to succeed. Thank you.