I have to praise our ports for the Healthy Harbor initiative that they have begun, and that we in the maritime industry are working very closely with them, putting particulate traps on vehicles, using low emission fuels and voluntary vessel speed reduction for ships coming into the port, a number of activities that are reducing the emissions within the harbor.

However, it's this bill and as you are legislators in your own right, you know how many times legislation, while passionate to meet the issue, oftentimes could be written improperly and it's our impression that this bill is written poorly.

While it has the best of intentions, and we agree with the intentions, we feel the bill as to be re-written and we as the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association oppose the bill in its current form.

[AB] 2042 requests that the...AQMD be the monitoring and marshalling body to effectively oversee this capping of pollution. Well, the AQMD doesn't have regulatory authority over mobile entities, that would be the EPA or CARB [CA Air Resources Bd], so the wrong agency has been selected as the marshalling body.

Number two, the concern is -- and again, I'm not here to preach doom and gloom, I'm not saying cargo's going to run to the other ports which is things we've all heard in the past and frankly we choose not to use those arguments -- but there are some legal implications here with port contracts with tenants in terms of growth in terminals, and if that growth is now prohibited because of air quality constraints, there hasn't been any allocation for that in the bill thus far, and we believe that there's some real liability, some real exposure there, that needs to be looked at not only from the city's standpoint but certainly the port's standpoint.

So there are just a couple of the issues that we have with this bill. Again, I come out to you very forthrightly we are for clean air, we are for a clean environment, we're doing our part, we're doing as much as we can, we're doing analysis, we're bringing in science, we're trying to do more than has ever been done before. And yes indeed, in some cases politicians have pushed the buttons and made us work a little faster, we'll agree with you there.

But we do have reservations about AB 2042 and we'd hope you take that seriously...

...I distributed a copy of our recent study entitled Harboring Pollution: The Dirty Truth About U.S. Ports, where we co-authored it with NRDC [Natural Resources Defense Council] and in there we evaluate the 10 largest U.S. ports, including the port of Long Beach and the port of Los Angeles...

The reality is that our ports are not doing enough, really not sufficient to mitigate their impacts on public health and the environment.

I do want to mention that we are distributing postcards to the community, the community is actually signing in support of a no-net-increase [in pollution] at the port and a lot of them are actually saying 'we want better than that.'

So we really see that AB 2042 is really critical in this first step to really mitigate the air quality impacts...

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LONG BEACH URGING THE CALIFORNIA STATE
LEGISLATURE TO ENACT ASSEMBLY BILL 2042

WHEREAS, Harbor Departments of the Cities of Los Angeles anG ,ong Beach predict that truck traffic to and from the ports of San Pedro Bay will more than double in the next 20 years from roughly 35,000 trucks to nearly 83,000 trucks per day; and

WHEREAS, ships and trucks emit air contaminants, including oxides of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and particulate matter; and

WHEREAS, state air regulators have stated that diesel engine exhaust poses a serious health risk, that it increases chances of lung cancer, intensifies asthma attacks and in some studies has been linked to infant mortality; and

WHEREAS, a landmark study conducted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District entitled, "Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study" or MATES 11, attributed 70% of all health risks from mobile sources in the South Coast Basin to diesel engine exhaust;

WHEREAS, AB 2042 would require a zero net increase in air pollution as the ports of San Pedro Bay grow and expand.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Long Beach resolves as follows:

Section 1. That the City Council supports AB 2042 in order to protect public health and safety by avoiding an increase in air pollution from the ports of San Pedro Bay.

Sec. 2. That the City Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this resolution to the Governor, to the members of the California Legislature representing the Long Beach and Los Angeles areas, and any other officials, agencies, entities, and individuals as may be deemed appropriate.

Sec. 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify to the vote adopting this resolution.

The Chamber is OPPOSING AB 2042 (Lowenthal).

The Chamber is concerned that this bill will restrict future port growth and will be detrimental to port cargo demands.

Specifically, the Chamber opposes AB 2042, as introduced, because:

The air quality baseline is restrictive and will be an obstacle to future growth within the Port of Long Beach and Port of Los Angeles. This includes their ability to handle rapidly changing cargo demands.

The bill presents a conflicting approach to mobile source emissions by placing the authority with the SCAQMD instead of the current jurisdiction held by the state and federal governments.

The bill places the statutory responsibility for these emissions with the cities and ports, which lack regulatory authority over the sources – an open invitation for litigation against these entities.

Furthermore, the Chamber has worked closely with the California Chamber of Commerce and the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association on this issue and shares their concerns, areas of contention, and opposition to AB 2042.

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2042 (Lowenthal)
As Amended April 1, 2004
Majority vote

TRANSPORTATION      8-6           APPROPRIATIONS      15-3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Oropeza, Chan, Kehoe,     |Ayes:|Chu, Berg, Calderon,      |
|     |Liu, Longville, Pavley,   |     |Corbett, Firebaugh,       |
|     |Salinas, Simitian         |     |Goldberg, Leno, Nation,   |
|     |                          |     |Negrete-McLeod, Oropeza,  |
|     |                          |     |Pavley, Ridley-Thomas,    |
|     |                          |     |Wesson, Wiggins, Yee      |
|     |                          |     |                          |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Houston, Bates, Benoit,   |Nays:|Runner, Bates, Keene      |
|     |La Suer, Mountjoy, Parra  |     |                          |
|     |                          |     |                          |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY :  Prohibits growth at the Ports of Long Beach and Los
Angeles (Ports) from increasing air pollution.  Specifically,
this bill:

1)Makes legislative findings and declarations regarding the
health risks attributable to diesel engine exhaust and the
federal requirement that certain regions with high levels of
air pollution must demonstrate that construction of new
highways will not worsen air pollution.

2)Requires the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) to establish a baseline for air quality in the Port
of Long Beach based on that port's 2001 emission inventory.

3)Requires SCAQMD to establish a baseline for air quality at the
Port of Los Angeles based on that port's 2002 emission
inventory.

4)Requires those baselines to include emissions from vessels and
harbor craft, cargo handling equipment, locomotives, and
commercial vehicles.

5)Requires the Cities of Long Beach and Los Angeles to require
growth and operations at their respective ports to be limited
or controlled so that air pollution does not exceed the
baselines established under this bill.

6)Requires both Cities, every March 1 beginning in 2006, to
report to SCAQMD regarding their compliance with this
pollution restriction.

7)Allows SCAQMD to impose a fee on each city to recover its
costs in administering this bill's requirements.

EXISTING LAW  vests responsibility for developing and enforcing
air pollution control measures with the Air Resources Board
(ARB) and various regional air quality management districts and
air pollution control districts.

FISCAL EFFECT :  According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee analysis, one-time costs of less than $50,000 in
fiscal year (FY) 2004-05 to SCAQMD to establish the Ports' air
quality baselines; these costs are potentially covered by fees
SCAQMD is authorized to impose on the Cities of Long Beach and
Los Angeles.  There will also be costs, probably less than an
aggregate of $100,000 annually starting in FY 2005-06, to the
Cities of Long Beach and Los Angeles to report to SCAQMD on
their compliance with this bill's air quality baseline
requirements; these costs are reimbursable from the state.

COMMENTS :  The author asserts that the Long Beach Freeway in the
vicinity of the Ports is overwhelmed by truck traffic, which is
projected to more than double, to 83,000 vehicles per day, in
the next 20 years.  Most of these trucks are diesel-powered and
diesel particulate matter (PM) emissions have been identified as
a toxic air contaminant by air quality officials.  These
officials believe the Ports are the largest single source of air
pollution in the four-county Los Angeles region and that trucks
and ships are the primary sources of port-related pollution.

Supporters lament the fact that in the vicinity of the Ports,
the lifetime excess cancer risk is 1,400 per million people
exposed, far above the one-in-a-million level the federal
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) deems to be acceptable.
They also point out that the Ports are "virtually next door" to
residential neighborhoods, schools, and playgrounds.

The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (Association), in
opposing this bill, counters that more than 1,000
container-moving equipment at the Ports have been, or soon will
be, fitted with particulate traps or diesel oxidation catalysts,
while hundreds of pieces of cargo-handling equipment are using
clean-burning emulsified fuel.  Various other initiatives are
underway to reduce emissions as well.  The Association contends
that this bill conflicts with state and federal law and policies
and "erects a vague and potentially prohibitive obstacle to
future growth (that would) send a negative message to the
international trade community."  The Association particularly
cautions against assigning mobile source emission regulation to
a regional agency, a prospect that could create "islands of
divergent authority for sources that travel between air
districts (and other state and federal jurisdictions."  For this
reason, they believe authority should remain with the ARB and
federal EPA.

Memo to LB Harbor Commissioners from PoLB Management re AB 2042

DATE: April 29, 2004

TO: Board of Harbor Commissioners

FROM: Gustav T. Hein, Executive Secretary

SUBJECT: Assembly Bill 2042

Recently, Assemblyman Alan Lowenthal introduced Assembly Bill 2042 pertaining to the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. As the bill currently reads, AB2042 would require a cap on future Port emissions beginning on March 1, 2006, based on a 2001 emissions inventory baseline. While the bill is unclear on a number of issues that will be described below, it is clear that it could severely limit future growth of both infrastructure and cargo volumes, ignores the state’s existing air quality regulatory policy, and endangers funding for the Alameda Corridor. These issues are discussed in further detail below.

The proposed bill’s requirement that, beginning March 1, 2006, the Port not exceed a 2001 emissions baseline is simply unachievable. The Port of Long Beach has experienced tremendous growth since 2001 that includes larger ships and more cargo, truck trips, and cargo handling equipment. In particular, the emissions from Pier T and the redeveloped Pier G/J are not included in the baseline but would count toward the total in 2006. As a result, the Port of Long Beach has almost certainly exceeded the 2001 emissions baseline and would further exceed such a baseline as projects under construction begin operation. The practical effect is that the bill would require the Port to limit operations at its tenant’s facilities in order to maintain an emissions cap.

A complex system of rules and regulations governs air quality issues relating to Ports. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has primary jurisdiction over ocean-going vessels and locomotives, while the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has regulates on and off-road mobile sources, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) has authority over the limited stationary sources (e.g. SERRF) located within the Port. In fact, except for ocean-going vessels, sources within ports are tightly regulated and face much stricter future regulation. While the goals of AB2042 are laudable, most of its goals have already been accomplished by the EPA and CARB, as well as the Port’s Air Quality Improvement Program (AQIP) and other voluntary programs. In fact, we expect that existing regulations of mobile sources (on-road trucks, locomotives, and off-road terminal equipment), which take effect in 2007, and Port’s AQIP will achieve the goals of AB2042 with respect to those sources, without the onerous responsibilities that the bill places on the San Pedro Bay Ports.

Emissions from ocean-going vessels and harbor craft probably represent the most difficult aspect of this bill. Marine sources of air pollution approximately make up two-thirds of total port-related emissions. While it may eventually be possible to reduce emissions below a 2001 baseline from other source categories, marine sources represent an intractable area. The Port has no authority over these international sources, while only weak federal and international air quality requirements exist. An additional concern is that many supporters of this bill believe that cold-ironing is a panacea for emissions from ships. However, as the Board is aware, cold-ironing can only apply to relatively few vessels in the short term and will only address a few percent of the total port-related emissions.

Other issues that make AB 2042 a flawed bill include the fact that it would penalize the San Pedro Bay ports compared to other California ports, and port-related trucking interests compared to other trucks. This bill also transfers authority over mobile sources from CARB, where under state law it has traditionally rested, to a local agency. Such a transfer may be unconstitutional and raises issues regarding the regulation of activities in the tidelands. The bill is too vague to be effectively implemented. In particular, it does not specify which air pollutants would be capped; air pollution has many components, only some of which are of particular concern in this region. Without specificity, it is not possible to target port emission control measures.

Finally, the bill could compromise the viability of the Alameda Corridor. As throughput is capped, discretionary cargo would be diverted to other ports, which would reduce corridor revenues and jeopardize ACTA’s ability to service its bond obligations.

The City of Long Beach at its City Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 4, has agendized this bill and will be considering this legislation.

Therefore, it is recommended that the Board of Harbor Commissioners oppose AB2042 as it is currently written and work with the author toward a more prudent and acceptable bill.

Recommended by:

Gustav T. Hein
Executive Secretary

Richard D. Steinke
Executive Director