Watch Now


Opposition to new LA-Long Beach clean air plan grows

Since the Clean Air Action Plan draft plan was released July 19, some entities that have a stake in the strategy, including the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association and Teamsters, have announced their opposition to components of the proposed update.

   Earlier this month, when the adjoining Los Angeles and Long Beach seaports released the draft version of their proposed 2017 Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) update, which outlines a new set of strategies for the harbor complex to further reduce air pollution from all port-related sources, they said that the document was formed by closely working with partners and stakeholders.
   But since the draft plan was publicly released July 19, some entities that have a stake in the strategy, including the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA) and the Teamsters union, have announced their opposition to the proposed update.
   In a guest commentary published July 21 in the Long Beach Press-Telegram, PMSA President John McLaurin wrote that his organization agrees that further emissions reductions can and should occur. However, he also said that the ports’ proposed revisions, don’t lay out the path to “a win-win on the economy and the environment.”
   “Instead, their proposals focus on aggressive environmental mandates with no measure of cost-effectiveness, no comprehensive financial feasibility analysis, no funding plan and no business rationale for these goals,” he wrote.
   McLaurin took particular issue with a provision mandating that all marine terminal cargo handling equipment create zero harmful emissions by 2030. A study commissioned by the PMSA has estimated that moving to zero-emission technologies across the two ports would cost between $16 billion and $28 billion statewide over the next 30 years, plus tens of billions more in operating costs.
   According to the ports’ plan, however, the cost to move to zero-emissions equipment would cost only $1.8 billion and the port-side infrastructure would cost be $2 billion.
   “To get such dramatically under-estimated costs, the CAAP revision is putting all of its eggs in one basket: unrealistically assuming that non-existent electrified cargo handling equipment technology will be developed, tested, work as planned and be affordably priced and produced in a quantity to meet the ports’ rigid timelines,” McLaurin wrote. “That’s a big assumption with no margin for error and no Plan B if and when something goes wrong.”
   Also criticizing the proposed CAAP update is the Teamsters union, which for years has championed the interests of drayage truck drivers who haul goods to and from the ports. The ports say that the proposed CAAP update reflects input from 50 meetings with over 30 groups, but the Teamsters say none of these meetings included truckers or representatives from the union.
   The day after the draft CAAP update was released, the Teamsters said in a statement that the new plan would “severely exacerbate the exploitation” of port truckers that the union says has been taking place for many years.
   Most drayage drivers are classified as independent contractors by the companies they work for, and are therefore ineligible to join the union. The Teamsters’ primary complaint regarding the CAAP update is a component requiring the phasing in of new clean engine standards for new model trucks entering the port drayage registries starting next year, followed by a truck rate structure that encourages the use of near-zero- and zero-emissions trucks, with the goal of transitioning to a zero-emissions drayage fleet by 2035.
   As was the case when the first CAAP was adopted by the ports in 2006, those drivers classified as independent owner-operators would be required to foot the bill for transitioning from older, heavier polluting trucks to newer, cleaner rigs.
   “Forcing the cost of the estimated $3 billion-$8 billion for near- to zero-emissions trucks onto the backs of drivers once again is not the solution; ending the indentured servitude of drivers is,” Teamsters Local 469 spokesman Fred Potter said.
   The ports have not publicly responded to the criticism, but are currently in the midst of a public review and comment period for the draft CAAP update that extends through Sept. 18. Written comments may be submitted to CAAP@cleanairactionplan.org until 5 p.m. on the closing date. The ports also plan to hold an Aug. 30 public workshop at Banning’s Landing Community Center, at 100 Water St. in Wilmington, Calif. starting at 5 p.m. to receive public comments.
   A joint public meeting is planned for November to consider the final draft.