Ports of LA/Long Beach: Clean Air Creates a Major Stink

Monday, October 15th, 2007  is "Blog Action Day".   A day when thousands of bloggers will write about the need to clean up our planet and preserve natural resources.   Everybody loves these ideas.  "Green" is the political color of choice.   How can it not be?   We borrow this planet from our children.  With those kinds of ideas in mind,  it would seem logical to think that recent efforts by the California Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to improve air quality would be universally cheered.    Not so!

In the spring of this year the Ports proposed the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan.  This plan called for drastic action to clean up air pollution largely created by the 16,000 trucks that service the ports complex every day.   Many of these trucks are older and produce exhaust emissions that damage the atmosphere.  The plan is to force the trucks to be upgraded or even better, replaced, with newer, greener vehicles.    The idea is to eventually force the older smoky trucks off the port entirely.  To fund this plan, the ports proposed a fund of 1.8 billion dollars to provide subsidies to truck operators to make the necessary modifications or replacements.   To create the fund, a Port imposed "truck impact fee" would be charged to trucks that are non-compliant.  That fee amounts to $34.00 per gate move.   The plan is to have only port licensed truckers operating "green trucks" accessing the ports.

While the goal of the plan sounds great,  the opposition to the way its being implemented is almost a perfect storm of logistics groups ranging from the NIT League, to the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, to the Intermodal Motors Carrier Conference, The Toy Industry Association and even the National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association.   The groups claim the plan damages independent operators in favor of larger, unionized trucking companies.  Further they claim that the plan will force an increase in port drayage rates by more than 80%.    The opposition groups think that elimination of pollution is a good idea, but oppose the truck centric way it is being implemented.

"As currently envisioned, the ports’ trucking plan is dressed-up as an air quality initiative but its result is an anti-competitive reorganization of the logistics industry."    

- John Ficker, President , National Industrial Transportation League.

Changes to the plan are being suggested by groups such as the Intermodal Logistics Association,who worry that the fees will disrupt intermodal freight movement as well as port activity.  Shippers are also asking that pollution related impact fees be used for port projects only – not projects such as the Alameda Corridor. Finally, shippers are demanding that “user fees” not penalize intermodal rail by charging both a fee and a separate toll on the Alameda Corridor.

The Federal Government hasn't gotten involved in this issue yet, but its coming.   The Intermodal Motor Carrier Conference has complained to the Federal Maritime Commission that the port plan will cause economic hardship to shippers by forcing an increase in drayage rates and a reduction in available service.   That is a violation of The Shipping Act.   

The Clean Air Action Plan is an effort by the City Councils in Los Angeles and Long Beach to appease environmental and labor interests in Southern California.   The problem is that the "solution" puts all of the burden on industry without their necessary involvement to solve the issue in a way that keeps the economy moving.

Any way you look at this issue, the idea is good but the solution stinks.  It's bad for truckers, it's bad for shippers and it's bad for affiliated businesses like 3PL's, Forwarders, Brokers and the economy.

Eric

Add Freightdawg.com to your social bookmarks!

Comments

[Sasha Green]

One of the points that really go my attention is the "no independents" rule. Can't owner-operators purchase vehicles that comply with the port's proposed regulations? Of course they can.

I think I see the port's rationale here.

In their minds, O-Os are more likely to run the high-hp, less efficient tractors more suited for other work, or try to get that old classic but smoky cab running or even scrimp a little on the maintenance causing more emmissions.

O-O's might be more willing to drop their fees in the name of competition, perhaps taking $ from the upkeep budget and staying perpetually unstable financially.

Also, it probably would be easier to negotiate with a handful of companies than hundreds of little guys.

I really see the ports trying to roll in requirements that will make their life easier and labelling it as air quality improvements. Call it removing the pain in the butt factor, if you will.

It reminds me a lot of the way the mandatory speed limiter proposal is being sold and I have to question the union involvement at a time when re-organizing efforts are under way in the trucking industry after years of declining influence.

Overall, the goal is worthy, but the port didn't get it quite right. Nice try folks; now get back to the drawing board.

[citizen]

I have a different view in this subject....

you say that the idea is bad for " It's bad for truckers, it's bad for shippers and it's bad for affiliated businesses like 3PL's, Forwarders, Brokers and the economy."

Ok fine ... but they together create the pollution problem and up to know they haven't done anything to fixed.

so they only bring ideas when they see their Busines$ at risk why they didn't purpose something earlier??

is very easy to point what looks wrong... but maybe is better to pint who have suggested any solutions...