|
News in Depth
CA Ass'n Of Port Authorites Opposed AQMD-Backed Emission Control Bill In Assembly Committee (read bill text); Oropeza Declines To Vote "Yes" or "No" In Committee But Votes For Reconsideration; Bill Will Now Likely Be Amended
(May 27, 2003) -- The CA Association of Port Authorities -- a group in which the Port of Long Beach is a member -- opposed in the CA Assembly Transportation Committee proposed legislation that would authorize retrofitting of engines and establishing emission mitigation fees...and would make various findings and declarations regarding air quality problems in the South Coast Air Basin and the contribution of ships and locomotives to those problems.
According to the Transportation Committee Legislative Analysis of AB 1063, "Both the railroads [CA Railroad Industry] and the ports worry that the bill would reduce freight moving through the ports and along the Alameda Corridor, thus threatening the revenue stream needed to pay off Alameda Corridor construction bonds."
The Port of LB itself was not listed as an opponent of the bill in Committee. The LB City Council has to date not discussed the bill or taken a position on it on behalf of the city.
AB 1063 (posted below), authored by Assemblyman Marco Firebaugh (D., South Gate), is sponsored by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The Transportation Committee Legislative Analysis (also posted below) lists supporters as including American Lung Association, California Environmental Rights Alliance, Coalition For A Safe Environment, Coalition for Clean Air, and Sierra Club California.
As cited in the Legislative Analysis, Assemblyman Firebaugh said, "Without stringent controls on sources subject to exclusive state or federal jurisdiction, clean air standards cannot be attained. This bill accomplishes (a) stop-gap strategy by granting specific authority to the South Coast Air Basin that may be exercised only in the event that federal and state regulators fail to act in a timely fashion."
The Legislative Analysis said SCAQMD argued that "there is a unique situation in their air
basin that compels them to seek special consideration. They cite the extraordinary concentration of emissions sources from the ports and their associated rail corridors. They also point out that their basin is the only extreme non-attainment basin for ozone in the nation and that they suffer the worst air quality and highest incidence of air pollution-related diseases in the country."
The Analysis said that in opposition, the Pacific Merchants Shipping Association (PMSA) noted that "if air districts are granted authority to regulate mobile sources of pollution, 'regulatory islands would be developed within the state that would penalize
those sources registered in the district, yet allow unregulated sources access at a competitive advantage. How would mobile sources such as trucks coming from the Central Valley be kept out of the South Coast district? For this reason, regulations
over mobile sources should be applied across the state at a minimum and preferably across the nation." PMSA also argued in favor of deferring to federal regulation of
maritime shipping.
The Committee Legislative Analysis said the CA Association of Port authorities pointed out "that its members have long supported retrofit and alternative fuel programs at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach but they believe these efforts are best directed at the state and national level. 'If local districts were responsible for mobile sources, regional regulation could penalize sources registered within a given district and allow unregulated outside sources a significant competitive advantage.' They argue that as much as 40% of the cargo arriving at these ports is 'discretionary,' meaning that additional fees could result in it being diverted to other ports in the U.S., Canada, or Mexico."
According to the Analysis, "railroads make similar arguments, pointing to their existing emission reduction agreement with ARB, their fear that new fees will make them less competitive with trucks (which, they contend, consume 2 to 4 times more fuel and emit 3 times the emissions per ton-mile), and their belief that there is a federal preemption of the issue. Both the railroads and the ports worry that the bill would reduce freight moving through
the ports and along the Alameda Corridor, thus threatening the revenue stream needed to pay off Alameda Corridor construction bonds."
LB-Carson Assemblywoman Jenny Oropeza, who is a member of the Assembly Transportation Committee, was present at the April 28 hearing on AB 1063 but declined to cast a "yes" or "no" vote. The bill needed 11 "yes" votes to advance to another committee and only got 8...but Assemblywoman Oropeza did vote in favor of granting the bill reconsideration (that motion passed), allowing the bill to be considered in the future. Reconsideration is a common procedure allowing the bill author to amend in an effort to neutralize opposition issues.
The Legislative Analysis states, "The author is expected to present amendments to address the concerns voiced by opponents. These amendments are likely to narrow the scope of the bill, provide for 'fair share' and 'mitigation' advisory committees, and shorten this bill's sunset period."
An email query by LBReport.com to Assemblywoman Oropeza's Sacramento office brought the following reply from Lisa Kaplan, Sr. Legislative Consultant and Assemblywoman Oropeza's consultant to the Transportation Committee:
Ms. Oropeza was present and chose not to vote yes on the bill -- due to serious legal/policy concerns. She is very much interested in trying to find a solution to the air quality problems in and around the South Coast -- that is why is voted to approve reconsideration on AB 1063.
However, she was very concerned about AB 1063 in its present form and is willing to look at a similar piece of legislation that deals with the legal and broad sweeping policy concerns this legislation contained.
The Assembly Transportation Committee vote to advance the legislation (required 11 yes votes, got 8) was:
Yes: Berg, Chan, Chu, Kehoe, Longville, Pavley, Salinas. Simitian
No: Dutra, Houston, Bates, Benoit, La Suer, Spitzer
Absent, Abstaining or Not Voting: Leslie, Liu, Mountjoy, Nakano, Oropeza, Parra
A motion granting the bill reconsideration passed 17-0.
Legislative analysis and bill text follow:
BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1063 Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 28, 2003
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
John Dutra, Chair
AB 1063 (Firebaugh) - As Amended: April 10, 2003
SUBJECT : Emission control
SUMMARY : Authorizes the retrofit of engines and the
establishment of emission mitigation fees in the South Coast Air
Basin. Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes various findings and declarations regarding air quality
problems in the South Coast Air Basin and the contribution of
ships and locomotives to those problems.
2)Authorizes the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD), to the extent permissible under federal law, to
require retrofit controls on any motor vehicle, nonroad
engine, or nonroad vehicle that operates substantially in that
district. These controls would be required to reduce
emissions of air contaminants to the maximum extent feasible,
as determined by SCAQMD. In the case of motor vehicles, the
regulations could not be implemented prior to January 1, 2007.
3)Requires the Air Resources Board (ARB) to submit the
regulations to the federal Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) in order to obtain a waiver from that agency.
4)Defines "motor vehicle," "nonroad engine," and "nonroad
vehicle" as those terms are defined in federal law.
5)Declares the Legislature's intent that, in adopting these
regulations, SCAQMD grant priority to reducing emissions in
areas impacted by the Alameda Corridor and the Alameda
Corridor East.
6)Requires SCAQMD to establish emission reduction targets for
ships and locomotives operating within that district.
7)Requires SCAQMD, on or after January 1, 2006, to adopt
mitigation fees on ports, marine terminals, shipping
companies, and/or railroads, unless the EPA has adopted
regulations that meet the district's emission reduction
targets.
8)Requires that the mitigation fees be used exclusively to
mitigate the emission impacts of the activities for which the
fees are imposed.
9)Allows the mitigation fees to remain in effect only until
January 1, 2021.
10)Conditions the imposition of mitigation fees upon the SCAQMD
making all of the following findings:
a) There is a nexus between the activity for which the fee
is being imposed and the pollution impact being targeted.
b) The fee is necessary to mitigate adverse health and
environmental impacts from that activity.
c) The fee does not exceed the reasonable cost of
mitigating those impacts.
d) The fee is fair and reasonable.
11)Requires SCAQMD to adopt a program of projects for the
expenditure of mitigation fees.
12)Limits administrative expenditures to no more than five
percent of the fee revenues.
13)Requires the program of projects to include the expected
costs and benefits of each proposed program and an
identification of the cost-effectiveness of each proposed
project.
14)Requires at least 20% of fee revenue to be reserved for
projects that reduce emissions of heavy-duty vehicles operated
by independent truckers in the district.
15)Defines independent truckers in an unspecified manner.
EXISTING LAW : Designates SCAQMD as the agency responsible for
air pollution control within the South Coast Air Basin.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : According to the author, this bill is intended to
grant the SCAQMD emission reduction authority - retrofit
controls and mitigation fees - over locomotives, ships, and
older onroad and offroad engines absent federal or state action.
The author contends that "Without stringent controls on sources
subject to exclusive state or federal jurisdiction, clean air
standards cannot be attained. This bill accomplishes (a)
stop-gap strategy by granting specific authority to the South
Coast Air Basin that may be exercised only in the event that
federal and state regulators fail to act in a timely fashion."
SCAQMD argues that there is a unique situation in their air
basin that compels them to seek special consideration. They
cite the extraordinary concentration of emissions sources from
the ports and their associated rail corridors. They also point
out that their basin is the only extreme non-attainment basin
for ozone in the nation and that they suffer the worst air
quality and highest incidence of air pollution-related diseases
in the country.
Writing in opposition, the Pacific Merchants Shipping
Association (PMSA) notes that if air districts are granted
authority to regulate mobile sources of pollution, "regulatory
islands would be developed within the state that would penalize
those sources registered in the district, yet allow unregulated
sources access at a competitive advantage. How would mobile
sources such as trucks coming from the Central Valley be kept
out of the South Coast district? For this reason, regulations
over mobile sources should be applied across the state at a
minimum and preferably across the nation." PMSA makes a
parallel argument in favor of deferring to federal regulation of
maritime shipping. "The United States is bound by international
treaties that stipulate the extent of port state control over
vessels calling at our ports. It seems imprudent for SCAQMD to
seek jurisdiction over sources that even the ARB abstains from."
The California Association of Port Authorities points out that
that its members have long supported retrofit and alternative
fuel programs at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach but
they believe these efforts are best directed at the state and
national level. "If local districts were responsible for mobile
sources, regional regulation could penalize sources registered
within a given district and allow unregulated outside sources a
significant competitive advantage." They argue that as much as
40% of the cargo arriving at these ports is "discretionary,"
meaning that additional fees could result in it being diverted
to other ports in the U.S., Canada, or Mexico.
The railroads make similar arguments, pointing to their existing
emission reduction agreement with ARB, their fear that new fees
will make them less competitive with trucks (which, they
contend, consume 2 to 4 times more fuel and emit 3 times the
emissions per ton-mile), and their belief that there is a
federal preemption of the issue. Both the railroads and the
ports worry that the bill would reduce freight moving through
the ports and along the Alameda Corridor, thus threatening the
revenue stream needed to pay off Alameda Corridor construction
bonds.
Author's amendments: The author is expected to present
amendments to address the concerns voiced by opponents. These
amendments are likely to narrow the scope of the bill, provide
for "fair share" and "mitigation" advisory committees, and
shorten this bill's sunset period.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
South Coast Air Quality Management District (sponsor)
American Lung Association
AREE International Corporation
Azusa Pacific University
California Environmental Rights Alliance
Coachella Valley Association of Governments
Coalition For A Safe Environment
Coalition for Clean Air
J. Gallo Mobile Tree Grinding
J. Miller Tractor Work
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition
Planning and Conservation League
Sierra Club California
Letters from 66 individuals
Opposition
California Association of Port Authorities
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Railroad Industry
Engine Manufacturers Association
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association
Western States Petroleum Association
|
