(Nov. 6, 2007, with added text Nov. 7) -- LBReport.com provides extended coverage -- with audio -- of the Long Beach Harbor Commission's Nov. 5, 2007 adoption of its "Clean Truck" program (tariff).

The tariff is a revised version [an American Shipper story called it "watered down"] of what LB Port staff originally proposed (item excluded some contentious elements, including employee provisions, opposed by industry interests).

The item was revised was agendized for LB Harbor Commission action October 29, but was then abruptly removed from that agenda after the L.A. Harbor Commission agendized a version with some differing provisions...and PoLB eventually revised its tariff to match PoLA's (enacted by L.A.'s Harbor Commission on Nov. 1.)

As adopted by LB's Harbor Commission on Nov. 5, the tariff includes the following timelines:

• October 1, 2008: All pre-1989 trucks will be banned from Port service.

• January 1, 2010: 1989-1993 trucks will be banned along with unretrofitted 1994-2003 trucks.

• January 1, 2012: All trucks that do not meet the 2007 federal standard will be banned.

An electronic ID system, such as RFID (Radio Frequency Identification), will be used, placing tags or the like in trucks, with tag readers at Port terminal gates, to ensure access only for clean trucks. [To view the Port's tariff ordinance, click here.]

The tariff doesn't include a funding mechanism to pay/defray/finance/reimburse/subsidize to replace old, dirtier trucks with leaner, cleaner trucks. So who should pay? Consumers? Taxpayers? Shippers? That remains to be decided...and it's not entirely clear by whom.

The Commission vote was preceded by legally required public testimony. No readily identifiable LB activists testified; most appeared to be from outside the area.

Some independent truckers, speaking in Spanish through a translator, urged adopting some mechanism to pay or defray the cost of replacing their old trucks. Speakers from some clean air advocacy groups also stressed the need for follow-up action. Julie Sauls from the California Trucking Association publicly asked to be included at the table in discussions on implementing the measure (to which Port Commissioners didn't respond publicly).

LBReport.com has posted salient audio in the "streaming audio" format (that should minimize launch/download time). We've also normalized audio levels to make them easier to hear.

To hear salient public testimony, click here. (10:11).

To hear salient Harbor Commission discussion (transcript in extended form below), click here. (15:15) [edits are indicated with a "whoosh" sound]

In making the motion to approve the item, Commissioner Nick Sramek [an appointee of Mayor Bob Foster] acknowledged that the tariff was only the first steps...and would be the first of several coming steps that he said will address outstanding issues. He cited the Port's past, present and future and the associated health impacts as reason to act:

Commissioner Sramek:...[W]hy are we here? For the past thirty years or maybe more, the Port incorporated activities that had basically gone unchecked while expanding from a small local Port to the second largest Port in the nation...

...Pollution from Port activities needs to be cleaned up, not just for the future and future growth but because of unchecked expansion of the past...

...I keep hearing a lot about money brought up and how much it's going to cost. Let's look at it from a different standpoint.

Pollution from the trucks is affecting the health of our residents. Pollution is affecting not only thousands but probably tens of thousands of people...

So what is the cost of cleaning up pollution from trucks? The cost is people's health and lives. If we can make the life of one child better, or that child doesn't get asthma or some other problem associated with truck pollution, I think the cost is worth it...

You can't put a dollar amount on these lives. I say whatever it costs, it's worth it.

We need, and will find a way, to pay for it...

LB Harbor Commissioner James Hankla seconded Commissioner Sramek's motion...and said:

Commissioner Hankla: ...How are we going to pay for this? You know what? I don't know, but I'll know by the end of the year and we will find a way.

Photo source: PoLB webcast

And there is going to be a way to pay for this, and I mean if you look at this Port out here, and what it's worth, and you combine the two Ports and what they're worth, and you combine the intellectual ability and capacity at both Ports, plus the finance investment industry, the brainpower is there to figure out a way to pay for this.

It's not to say it's going to be free, and it's not to say it's going to be cheap, but it is worth it, as Commissioner Sramek said.

And the other issue that I think often goes unnoticed is the fact that if we are not able to grow green, we will forego a million new jobs for this region over the course of time.

And that is incredible if you take a look at the needs of what the State of California is going to have as this population in this state grows...We're going to have to have jobs for those people, and this will help provide it, but it will provide it in a way that is sustainable and green.

And I believe that in the future, these two Ports will not only be the greenest ports in the world, but they will be acknowledged to be the greenest ports in the world, and they will be a model for all other ports in the world to follow.

And I predict that those in the United States at least will follow shortly.

So I think we've set in motion an inexorable wave, that will not be turned back, with this historic vote today.

Prior to calling for the vote, LB Harbor Commission President Mario Cordero said:

Harbor Commission President Cordero: ...I think you've heard from this Commission, we're all in unison in terms of what needs to be done.

Photo source: PoLB webcast

And as Commissioner Hankla indicated, we are going to move forward, quickly here.

...As you heard here, Commissioner Sramek began by a discussion of public health issues. That's paramount.

We've also heard this question about money, who's going to pay for it. The interesting thing about that latter question is that's where the debate really focuses on...

I recently had a discussion with someone, a representative of a major retailer, and asked that person how often do you change your fleet? They have a considerable fleet, and the answer to that question was, at the latest every seven years.

Think about that answer. And I said to that person, well, if you would help us do this at the Port, truck drayage, that would mean that if we applied your business model this Port, we wouldn't have a truck older on these roads than the year 2000.

...The bottom line is what we're trying to do is actually implement models that are already out there. The only question is, who's going to pay the cost?

I began my presidency the first day by referencing issues that happened in the 60s and that surfaced in the 60s. And again this is another example about leaders then who talked about needed to be done.

So ultimately what it comes down to at the end of the day and the bottom line, it is our responsibility as Commissioners both in the Port of Los Angeles and the Port Long Beach to take on this challenge and take on the challenge of doing the right thing...

We have a paramount public health crisis and we need to address an issue that's not just here with the Port of Long Beach. This past weekend, I understand a major conference in Seattle, the Conference of Mayors, that addressed the question of their environmental plan in terms of global warming. Suffice it to say that all across America, if not the world, these issues are being discussed.

So in conclusion, I think if you bear with us on this question, ultimately these two Ports who are public servants, who are acting under the mandate not only of their elected officials but both the industry and both the community, and we're going to have to make some tough choices. And in the end, one of the things I think is very, very clear, we need to share in the cost.

This is not just about government paying. This is not just about the Ports paying. What it comes down to is exactly what our Mayor has said, Bob Foster: the ultimate beneficiary has to help in this deal here and pay the cost, and that's the bottom line...

Commissioner Topsy-Elvord also made a motion (approved separately)...directing staff to come back with a program to fund the early implementation of the program adopted today as well as provide information about the associated grant plan.

The Port of LB tariff includes the following schedule for banning the oldest trucks:

Following the Commission's vote, LB Mayor Bob Foster issued a written statement that said in part:

Mayor Foster statement: ...[C]andidly, our work is just beginning.

We will now embark on developing an implementation plan that makes these standards real and meaningful. And I look forward to engaging in the debates about what form the enforcement will take; what, if any, subsidies will be used; and creating the timelines and schedules to put these standards into place.

And let me be frank. It is going to cost money to create the greenest ports in the world. We will have more spirited debates about who pays, how much and on what it will be spent.

For additional coverage, LBReport.com links with permission to coverage in American Shipper's California/Pacific Connection: Long Beach Passes First Portion of SoCal Truck Re-regulation Plan.