Switchboard, from NRDC › Adrian Martinez's Blog

Under New Leadership, Federal Maritime Commission Backs Down—Another Cavil Hurdle Displaced on the Road to Clean Air at the Ports of LA and Long Beach

2009-06-18T19:51:52Z

This week, the Federal Maritime Commission decided to file a motion to withdraw its lawsuit against the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the nation's two busiest ports. Reversing, the Bush-era decision to thwart efforts by these ports to clean up the decrepit trucks that roam the harbor area and cause immense impacts to the health of residents was a great idea. I assume it was the leadership of Joseph Brennan that made this happen -- he originally dissented from the decision to throw roadblocks in front of the ports to stop them from cleaning the air in the first place. Chairman Brennan, stated it well: "While today's action remains subject to approval of the U.S. District Court, I am gratified that we have taken this step to clear the path for the Ports' Clean Trucks Programs." I assume it also helped that Judge Leon gave them a pretty rough thumping in denying the Maritime Commission's attempts to preliminarily stop the ports from implementing key portions of their clean truck programs.

Chairman Brennan was also probably concerned about the lawsuit because the Commission made a decision to intervene against the clean truck programs without complying with several federal environmental laws. Therefore, the Commission acted in an uninformed manner of the environmental consequences of its actions. Earlier this year, NRDC, Sierra Club, and the Coalition for Clean Air called the Commission on this and filed suit in District Court in California. If Judge Leon grants the Commission's motion, a large part of our lawsuit will go away. However, there is one piece remaining.

The FMC still has an investigatory proceeding that could force the Ports to "cease and desist" from implementing an agreement that sets a framework for cleaning up harbor area pollution. We hope the Commission will make the wise decision to stop this investigatory proceeding as well because it solely serves as an attempt to divert attention from where it should be placed -- namely cleaning up the filthy air in harbor area. At a minimum, if the investigation goes forward, the FMC should comply with federal environmental laws.

The Federal Maritime Commission Needs A Lesson In Transparency

2009-05-19T20:57:17Z

Back in October, the NRDC filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Federal Maritime Commission related to the agency's review of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach's Clean Trucks Programs. Specifically, NRDC was interested in what spurred on the rabid attacks and scrutiny on these ports, and wanted to disseminate this information to the broader public to provide some information about why the Maritime Commission acted the way it did. NRDC has a long history of obtaining and disseminating important documents from government agencies, including obtaining documents from the Dick Cheney Energy Task Force. Primarily an agency concerned with shipping, it was unclear to us what external influences and other factors brought on the Maritime Commission's desire to put these ports' efforts to clean the air under a microscope.

Over the last year, the Commission filed a lawsuit against the ports, initiated an administrative investigation, and used procedural hurdles to delay collection of a dirty truck fee that was designed to raise money for cleaner trucks and spur deployment of cleaner, more efficient trucks in the harbor area of Los Angeles and Long Beach. All these decisions were made in closed session without review from the public. Before we submitted the request and even now, we continue to receive questions about the Maritime Commission and its efforts to dismantle the clean truck programs. Despite claims by the Maritime Commission, it has been less than forthright in providing explanation for why it got involved in challenging the ports' clean-up efforts.

Almost seven months after filing the FOIA request, the agency has put us in a position where we are forced to file a lawsuit to receive the information we requested. Public Citizen, an organization that promotes Health, Safety and Democracy, is working with us on this case. The Maritime Commission continues to clench onto these documents despite many affirmations by the highest court in the land about the importance of FOIA. The Supreme Court has said that FOIA was designed to protect citizens' "right to be informed about what their Government is up to." U.S. Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 773 (1989) (internal quotations omitted). "The basic purpose of FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed." Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242 (1978).

NRDC also asked for a fee waiver for these documents because of their importance to explain the Maritime Commission's unprecedented actions. Under FOIA, requesters are entitled to a waiver of fees if the disclosure of the information is in the public interest and not in the commercial interest of the requester. The documents NRDC requested are most certainly in the public interest because they deal with two of the most critical programs to clean up air pollution near the nation's two largest ports. In denying the request, the Commission put up blinders as to the importance of these programs and claimed there was no additional public interest in receiving the plethora of information they are not releasing. Also, the Commission denied our fee waiver request by creating a commercial interest out of thin air. Despite the fact that as a nonprofit, we have no commercial interest in the requested documents, the Commission claimed that since the documents might end up in the hands of people who may have a commercial interest, then we are not entitled to the fee waiver. Once the documents are made public, we cannot guarantee that they will not end up in the hands of people who may have a commercial interest. FOIA allows people to disseminate information broadly, and in fact, it encourages this. The Maritime Commission's approach would throw FOIA on its head by effectively precluding fee waivers for any public interest pursuit that may end up in the hands of somebody with a commercial interest.

At the end of the day, the Commission needs to remember the "Freedom" in the Freedom of Information Act. It is not called the OGDPDA -- "Opaque Government Don't Provide Documents Act." Hopefully, the Commission will see the light. It may take an order from a judge though.

Rush for Clean Air In Long Beach

2009-04-28T00:48:56Z

I have always admired the Port of Long Beach's award winning media outreach team. They were recently awarded several prestigious honors at the "Excellence in Communication" awards hosted by the California Association of Public Information Officials (CAPIO). Their media team is especially effective at promoting Port of Long Beach operations. While some components of the port are easy to promote -- e.g. jobs, its position as one of the busiest ports in the world, and several other key components of its commerce -- there are several aspects of its operations that are hard to spin. Specifically, the immense public health impacts resulting from the ports' operations are a hard pill to swallow. For example, according to CARB's estimates, approximately 10 people die prematurely from pollution associated with the ports and good movement system each day in California (approximately 3,700 premature deaths from fine particulate matter from goods movement in 2005). Keeping people distracted from this hard fact is not an easy task. And, this recent award shows the Port of Long Beach's cunning skill at doing so.

Now, I am not going to dispute that this is a different port than the one residents, NRDC, the Coalition for Clean Air, California Earth Corp, and several others went up against in 2004 when it tried to present a completely inadequate expansion plan (i.e. Pier J) that did little to anything to mitigate the serious impacts on residents in Long Beach and the region in general. Under the leadership of the Boards of Harbor Commissioners, the ports have come a long way, but this movement only resulted because the social imperative is so great.

Environmentalists and community advocates are often criticized by goods movement industry lobbyists for "changing the goal line" in demanding too much protection for the public from deadly port pollution. This football analogy must be a bullet point on some set of widely distributed media talking points because I hear it at least once a month from different people. However, these cries from industry and the ports fail to incorporate the fact that the ports just entered into the stadium. Even though, getting the ports into the stadium was a huge effort full of blood, sweat, and tears, they have not even fielded the ball yet. The work needed to prevent the approximately 10 people dying prematurely each day is immense. And, it is my job to push the ports and other goods movement polluters to reduce that impact. The goal line is air that meets federal clean air standards, and until the ports and industry are willing to come to the table to discuss meeting that goal, we will continue to push until that goal is a reality. There has been recent movement to achieving clean air by the ports, but we are far from a place where harbor area residents will breathe clean air.

This is all relevant because the Port of Long Beach recently approved the Middle Harbor Development Project. Surely, proponents of this project will likely send their media attack dogs after us for appealing this project to elected leaders on the Long Beach City Council. They will likely say we hate puppies and have other horrible attributes. This tactic will be designed to distract from the substance of the appeal. We are simply asking that the port protect public health, reduce its impacts in the harbor area and beyond, and take the challenges of global warming more seriously. The fact of the matter is that the port has a lot more work ahead of it to reduce its immense impacts. Our goal is not to delay this project, but rather to make it better. Instead of relying on its award-winning media team to fight us in this effort, we hope the commission and port staff will work with us to create a win-win solution. I invite the port to work with us to get a first down.

Breaking the Law, Breaking the Law

2009-04-04T00:54:43Z

I suppose the Governing Board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) was listening to the Judas Priest song, Breaking the Law, this morning before it held its public hearing on Proposed Rule 317. SCAQMD is one of the agencies that is charged with implementing the Clean Air Act in Southern California. Before the Governing Board today was a rule that would implement a requirement in the Clean Air Act that is triggered when regions fail to meet federal clean air standards. The rule only applies to the largest stationary sources of pollution in the region (e.g. refineries, power plants, etc.). Because Los Angeles' air is chock full with deadly smog, the region will not meet clean air standards for ozone by 2010. Thus, this fee provision will be triggered to help push the region to meet these clean air standards and reduce toxic air emissions from large, polluting stationary sources. This fee mechanism was written into the Clean Air Act nearly 20 years ago and should not come as a surprise to local polluting industries since LA's air has never met federal air quality standards for ozone. This is just the first time LA's polluters will have to pay the fee, as outlined in the Clean Air Act. The fee also doesn't kick in until 2012 and provides an incentive to businesses to reduce their pollution in the long run, which will ultimately reduce their potential pollution fine. Here is how the hearing played out.

Many industry lobbyists and businesses came to testify against the rule today. However, the most relevant factor related to the Board's decision to take a turn down illegal road was testimony by an industry lobbyist who claimed the Clean Air Act contained flexibility to allow exemptions for certain polluters like those that have already placed pollution controls on their equipment. Upon actually reading the text of the Clean Air Act, it becomes apparent that the lobbyist was interpreting what this lobbyist wished the law states, instead of what it actually states. While I would relish the ability to make lawful my fanciful interpretations of the law based on my whims, courts throughout the nation, including the United States Supreme Court, have determined that this is an invalid approach. Our court system operates in the real world, not some fanciful Alice in Wonderland state. In fact, I agree with one of the industry lobbyists who claimed the Clean Air Act provision is a "regulatory gun" that requires the SCAQMD to adopt a fee rule and does not permit exemptions for some of the largest polluters in the region. At the end of the hearing, a Board member asked the staff to come back at the June meeting with a proposal that allows exemptions for certain polluters. Stated bluntly, the Clean Air Act does not support this approach.

The Board has asked its staff to turn the Clean Air Act on its head. I understand we are in a recession, and I think adding a fee is a delicate, tough issue. However, the recession itself does not provide cover for people -- especially our government -- to break the law. If this were the case, we would have mayhem and lawlessness in the streets. The appropriate remedy in this case if the District thinks the fee is unfair is seeking a legislative change. However, I must admit that this is like a loser in Monopoly trying to change the rules near the end of the game to make the winner the person with the least amount of money. Here, the SCAQMD, the California Air Resources Board and other agencies took a gamble in not having a viable plan to meet clean air standards. Now, penalties are being put in place, and these penalties are tough for some. We are willing to work with stakeholders to help develop approaches that will minimize the impacts from this regulation (e.g. developing a program to help those small, highly polluting businesses that will be subject to this rule). We will also work with everybody to make sure the funds collected by this rule are distributed to clean the air in a fair, transparent manner. All in all, we simply want compliance with the law, and we will demand just that at the June hearing.

Desperately Seeking Green—Port of Long Beach Seeks to Create Mega Terminal

2009-04-02T01:54:42Z

The Port of Long Beach will shortly release its final environmental review documents for the Middle Harbor Development Project. My, how times have changed since the Pier J debacle of 2004. In 2004, "green" was a four-letter word when talking to the ports and most industry lobbyists about port expansion. Back then, there were claims that commerce and environmental and public health safeguards could not coexist. Now, industry lobbyists, the ports, and others have cloaked commerce in a large green cape. The key for environmentalists, like myself, is to look under this green cape to make sure the ports are doing what they say can be done to expand commerce while protecting the environment and community.

Now, I assure you I have not pre-determined my views on this project. I will review the plans for the expansion project, and then make recommendations on how it can be improved. If it is good, I will praise the Port of Long Beach. The Port of Long Beach and others will claim that this project is a lot better on environmental issues than previous projects. There is no doubting that this is probably the case, but the Port of Long Beach set a very low bar before. It would be like a parent rationalizing a D- on a report card as good because their child previously received an F. We need a project that is an A. The community and health concerns about port operations are so grave, that they need to be addressed now (for more blog posts on this topic, click here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).

Now, I want to provide a little background on this project. It is massive, and when I say massive, I mean massive. At full build-out, the combined reconstructed terminal will process approximately 33% more containers than the current throughput at the Port of Oakland, the fourth busiest container port in the nation. The increase in containers is the equivalent of inserting the Port of Vancouver into Long Beach. And, this is going to be just one of the many facilities that the Port of Long Beach operates. The project will cost $750 million dollars to build and includes a decade of construction. The factual predicate of the project is that commerce will dramatically increase at some point in the future -- even despite the current slump we are facing. I'm not clairvoyant, so I will not predict whether commerce will pick up in the region. However, whether it does or not, the Port of Long Beach must clean up its act.

Our review process for these projects is very transparent. NRDC is looking at the expansion project under the following lens:

NRDC will examine whether it includes adequate measures to protect residents from pollution from ships and locomotives. The region where Long Beach is located is one of smoggiest, polluted places in the nation. Dr. Jane Hall of California State University at Fullerton has determined that residents of the region are paying a hefty price for failing to meet federal clean air standards: $1,250 per person per year, according to a recent study she released. The Port of Long Beach is a major polluter in Southern California, and it must do more to reduce its share of the pollution stew that exists in this region. Besides, minimizing the air pollution costs that residents in Southern California are paying through our health is an economic stimulus that cannot be ignored.
We will work with allies to examine whether the project includes the legally required level of mitigation for community impacts, including air filtration systems for schools and adequate resources for health clinics to help alleviate the impacts from the tons of air pollution the Port of Long Beach spews into the community on a daily basis.
We will also examine how the Port of Long Beach is dealing with the attacks on the clean trucks program and the inability it has had to place clean trucks on the road.
Finally, we will be looking to see if the Port of Long Beach has adequately addressed the new elephant in the room -- global warming.

All in all, I hope the Port of Long Beach does a good job addressing the concerns of the community, environmentalists, and other stakeholders. If the project does not resolve these concerns, we will have to look into our options. All in all, we must go back to what Councilwoman Rae Gabelich said during the Pier J debate to measure the success of this project.

"This city has to decide, are they about trade and tourism, or are they about good, healthy neighborhoods and good quality of life?" said Councilwoman Rae Gabelich, who represents Bixby Knolls. "This can't be about progress and the almighty dollar. It's got to be about people."

It is my view that the Port can have it all -- e.g. good, healthy neighborhoods, good jobs and robust commerce. However, we need to ensure the people don't get short changed on this port expansion deal.

Another Ozone Study Confirms that the Continued War on Smog is Worth the Effort

2009-03-12T23:38:55Z

In the era of global warming, plain vanilla air pollution -- like smog -- sometimes gets pushed to the side. Some people may consider it the less popular sister of the homecoming queen (CO2). However, this does not diminish the importance of this pollution. In fact, more and more data is mounting up that creates a further call to action to fix America's smog problems. The March 12, 2009 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine includes the results of a nationwide survey that determines ozone exposure is linked to higher risk of premature death. Science Daily includes a brief article on the study on its website. Even with these alarming findings, lobbyists, including those representing the trucking, coal, petroleum, and many other industries, continue to fight tough smog regulations. This is despite the fact that we are losing a medium sized city each year to death from respiratory diseases.

"World Health Organization data indicate that about 240,000 people die each year from respiratory causes in the United States," said Jerrett. "Even a 4 percent increase can translate into thousands of excess deaths each year. Globally, some 7.7 million people die from respiratory causes, so worldwide the impact of ozone pollution could be very large."

According to these World Health Organization's statistics, over the next four years, we will lose approximately 960,000 people prematurely due to respiratory causes in the United States -- that loss over a four year period is greater than losing the entire population of Detroit, San Jose, or San Francisco. Thus, the stakes are high, and this is not just an environmental issue but a moral issue.

The New England Journal of Medicine study found that places like Los Angeles, Riverside, the San Joaquin Valley, and Houston are more vulnerable to premature death because of the higher ozone levels. The increased chances of dying from a respiratory cause can be as much as 50% greater in these most extreme ozone areas. Thus, we need even greater anti-smog leadership in these ozone hotspots. Places like Minneapolis faired better on the ozone front.

All in all, this additional study cements the fact that we need strong plans to reduce pollution in these high ozone/densely populated areas. The timing of this study is also fortuitous because it will hopefully help push the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to adopt a stronger standard for ozone under the Clean Air Act. Two days ago, the EPA, represented by the Department of Justice, asked for more time to review the controversial ozone standards it set during the Bush era -- for previous blogs about the ozone debacle from my colleagues at NRDC, click here, here and here. The court case stems from a lawsuit filed by several states and environmental groups in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. David Baron, the Earthjustice lawyer representing the environmental groups that challenged the Bush EPA ozone standard, identified EPA's request as "an encouraging step."

Luckily, many efforts to reduce pollution concurrently reduce ozone and climate change impacts. A recent NRDC report discusses just this issue -- namely how implementing California's landmark AB 32 legislation will also improve air quality and health throughout the state.

So, today, I am officially reaffirming my commitment as a soldier in the War on Smog. Care to join me?

A Failure of Asthmatic Proportions: Port Fuel Program Not Cutting the Mustard

2009-03-10T00:43:55Z

Today, the Engineering and Environmental Committee of the Board of Harbor Commissioners for the Port of Long Beach heard an amendment to provide more money to shippers to clean up the filthy fuel these ships currently burn. The Committee pushed sweetening this handout to shippers by increasing the incentive funds by 50%. This program has been in place for more than half of a year, and it was the product of the shipping industry and the nation's two busiest ports concocting a one year voluntary program to incentivize cleaner fuels being burnt in ship engines close to shore. My colleague, David Pettit, blogged about this program back in January, and provides a good background on how the program works and who developed it. All in all, since David blogged about this issue in mid January, participation rates have continued to remain low. However, breathing from children and adults in the Long Beach/Los Angeles harbor area has remained the same. It amazes me that in these tough economic times, shippers would not take these handouts. I am confident most consumers would rush to be paid to use cleaner fuels in their cars.

Overall, the shipping industry continues to inflict its harmful diesel exhaust on residents in Southern California. The voluntary effort to clean up this pollution has been about as successful as a Bernie Madoff financial seminar would be today. I would not try to cure the Ebola virus by taking an aspirin. So, the ports should take the same tact when dealing with one of the largest sources of pollution in the most polluted metropolitan area in the nation. Ship pollution wreaks havoc on people's health, and accordingly demands a real solution. The ports should work quickly to adopt a tariff that requires the use of this cleaner fuel while we are waiting for the California Air Resources Board's rules to be implemented (and importantly to be in place even when the state regulations are implemented -- in case of a legal challenge). We have wasted enough time on a voluntary program that has not worked thus far. With the economy this bad, families can ill afford expensive treatment for asthma and other respiratory illnesses caused by diesel pollution.

Finally, I hope the shipping industry keeps this failure in mind as it decides whether to challenge legally the regulations adopted by the California Air Resources Board to protect residents from deadly diesel ship pollution. Attempts to defeat these regulations could be disastrous for public health in Los Angeles and Long Beach. In addition, attempts to topple this critical regulation could trigger penalties under the Clean Air Act that will harm the region economically. At least the failure of the ports' voluntary program will show the shipping lobbyists that even when they are involved in devising a program, they still have problems reining in their own members to participate.

To end, this is not an issue of feasibility -- Maersk has been using this cleaner fuel off of California's coast for more than two years -- but rather it appears to be a continual failure by the shipping industry to realize that it needs to do its part to clean up our air. I challenge the shipping industry to prove me wrong.

LA’s Big Rigs Just Became a Whole Lot Sexier

2009-02-25T23:41:26Z

Hallelujah, the future is here! The Los Angeles Times covered the much anticipated event of the all-electric truck rolling off a Los Angeles assembly line yesterday. Asthma inhalers throughout the region probably trembled as 25 brand new trucks that release no tailpipe emissions were presented for the public to see. This is a major turning point in the fight to remove fossil-fuel burning trucks from rumbling down our streets, making our air filthy, and affecting public health for decades to come. The fossil-fuel burning engine has met its match in the form of the The Nautilus E30 by Balqon. I would have probably preferred to name it the "Diesel Crusher 2009" or some similarly aggressive name, but I suppose Balqon wanted the truck to sound more like a real product and not a demolition car.

This partnership between the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Port of Los Angeles that pushed this truck from concept to reality could not have come at a better time because the harbor continues to have some of the filthiest air in the nation. This move to electric trucks, along with electrified rail and a movement to other more efficient methods to moving freight, is critical to protecting vulnerable populations near our seaports, railyards, and adjacent to our freight corridors. Also, the industries that move our nation's freight need to be put on notice that their constant statements doubting the viability of electric truck technologies need to stop. The technology is here, so let's figure out a way to use it.

This effort also marks a glimpse into the future of how green business can be good business. It is no secret that the City of Los Angeles through the leadership of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Janice Hahn see the all-electric truck as a way to clean up the harbor area, but also to boost the local economy by producing this equipment here. Convincing the company to move to Harbor City and negotiating for a $1,000 royalty for each truck sold to parties beyond the Port of Los Angeles is a good move.

All in all, Tuesday, February 24, 2009 will be an important day for clean air in Los Angeles. But let's not rest on our laurels--there are still several issues that need to be addressed such as ensuring these trucks are powered by renewable energy and making the market for these trucks larger. So, I now will raise a higher challenge to the air district and the port. I challenge these agencies to get 2,500 of these trucks on the road by this time next year. From what I know about Mayor Villaraigosa, David Freeman and the South Coast AQMD Board, this is a challenge that they are willing to accept.

Warm Welcome for the Clean Truck Fee at the Ports

2009-02-19T19:46:27Z

After years of waiting, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach started collecting a container fee to fund cleaner trucks yesterday. To the best of my knowledge, the ports are still operating, and the sky has not fallen as some doomsday forecasters suggested would happen when the container fee kicked into full gear. This is a momentous occasion because health and environmental justice groups for years have been pushing for a concept that polluters should pay for the clean up of toxic air pollution, and these costs should not be born by harbor area children with asthma, families losing relatives prematurely due to severe air pollution, or the myriad of other impacts that port operations impose on residents. Efforts to pass state container fee legislation have been vetoed by the Governor, so this makes the local fee that much more important.

Despite increased scrutiny by the Federal Maritime Commission, the Ports have forged ahead to create a more appropriate system to ensure the right people are paying for clean trucks-namely the shippers and their clients. I actually think it is a good idea that the Federal Maritime Commission is taking the following actions:

The FMC also determined to require the Parties to the Port Fees Service Agreement to file special monitoring reports with the Commission. These reports will allow the Commission to closely monitor the on-going operation of the Clean Truck Fee collection process to assess the Fee's impact on the San Pedro Bay drayage industry and the American shippers and consumers served by that industry.

Perhaps, by monitoring the polluting industry that operates out of the ports, the Maritime Commission will realize that it needs to serve the public interest, not the parochial interests of a few dissenting members of industry. Understanding that there needs to be appropriate economic incentives in place to make the trucking industry more accountable and sustainable instead of an industry that treats the community and the environment as its dumping ground is important for our officials in Washington D.C. to understand. Hopefully, the agency will get this picture by monitoring the port trucking system.

All in all, I feel proud to have worked with the ports, local officials, environmentalists, health advocates, environmental justice advocates, labor advocates, and industry advocates in advancing a program that places the economic incentives in the right place. Despite some in industry kicking and screaming along the way, the ports prevailed in finally assessing a fee to fund clean trucks. With a clean truck fee in place, I expect to see fewer decrepit trucks in the harbor area and more trucks that are newer, cleaner and less damaging to the environment and surrounding community. This effort could not have come at a better time because the trucking companies that have stepped up to the plate to be more accountable need this infusion of money to ensure cleaner operations.

Are LA’s Transportation Planners Living in a Fairy Tale Land?

2009-02-04T22:24:30Z

I attended the Project Committee meeting for the I-710 project last week. This Committee directs how the future expansion project for the I-710 should proceed. For those of you not familiar with Southern California traffic, but have heard the horror stories, the I-710 is the major artery leading to and from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. It has amongst the highest percentage in the nation of diesel-belching big rigs driving down it every day -- literally thousands of dilapidated trucks scream down its lanes daily. Those unlucky enough to travel the I-710 can see the truck exhaust come out of the tailpipe. However, researchers at Universities in Southern California discovered that the pollution does not simply remain in the freeway corridors, and areas immediately adjacent to highways have exceptionally high levels of fine particulate levels too. A public letter today to transportation planners at the Southern California Association of Governments from a broad array of environmental groups, environmental justice groups, and public health groups used this research to indicate the potential havoc that is being wreaked by this public health issue in communities near highways throughout the region. The letter submitted states --

The California Air Resources Board ("CARB") recognizes that "air pollution studies indicate that living close to high traffic and the associated emissions may lead to adverse health effects beyond those associated with regional air pollution in urban areas." EPA estimates that in a moderate sized city, particle pollution causes 25 to 50 increased deaths for each 0.5 mg/m3 above the national standard. The studies conducted in the L.A. basin show that concentrations of black carbon (one of the most hazardous components of the fine particles) downwind from highways with heavy truck traffic can be 12-13 mg/m3 times greater than concentrations found in urban air upwind of the highways. Particle concentrations greater than the regional average are measured at least 300 meters from heavily trafficked highways. In the four county Los Angeles air basin, census data show that approximately 1.5 million residents live within 300 meters of major freeways. Using EPA's methodology, for these 1.5 million Angelinos living in this high pollution zone, increased mortality is estimated to range from 300 to 500 deaths per year.

Despite this troubling scientific evidence, the quest for clean air in the basin appears to be a joke for some. In jest during the meeting on Thursday night, several decision-makers on how the I-710 expansion project should proceed mentioned that they wish they had a "clean air fairy" that could come forward and clean up the toxic mess that is air quality near areas where diesel equipment is highly concentrated (e.g. highways, ports, etc). The implication from their tone was that environmental and environmental justice advocates are living in a mythical world in desiring clean, healthy air for all Angelinos. Despite these attempts to diminish the advocates' message, they mentioned that our region is doing the best it can. This led me to question whether that is in fact true. Are we in fact doing the best we can?

Upon thinking about the current direction of the I-710 project is taking and other projects like the SR-47 (another pollution-plagued thoroughfare in LA), it is becoming clearer that we are not doing our best. As debates are brewing in D.C. about adding more and more funds for capital-intensive highway expansion projects, this issue becomes more critical. Our transportation planners continue to desire to add freeway lanes by default throughout communities in the basin, and I am left wondering how we will reduce our severe air pollution problems in the region, battle climate change, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

The letter sent today lays out several alternatives that could be used to dramatically reduce pollution, including electrified trucks, electrified rail, and implementation of an advanced container transport system. These are the technologies that our leaders need to be implementing and laying the groundwork for now instead of continuing the stale tactic of continuously adding highway lanes.

I recall the day in my childhood when someone alleged that the Tooth Fairy did not exist. I denied these assertions and still believed in this mythical being because I did not want to lose out on cash under my pillow. Like my childhood self, our region is in denial that its actions are not exacerbating LA's notorious air pollution problems. The impacts of this denial are far greater than losing a couple of bucks under a pillow. We are left with premature death, asthma attacks, children missing school days, and many other chronic problems. That is a lot to lay our head on at night. So, I encourage our planners and air quality agencies to work with NRDC and other groups to realize that we do not live in a fairy tale land where someone can wave a wand and our pollution disappears. Our air pollution woes are real and deserve real attention and solutions.

Speed Bumps for Clean Trucks Program At Port of Los Angeles

2009-01-27T21:51:06Z

Ron White from the Los Angeles Times wrote an interesting article today about the Clean Trucks Program. The article examines the hurdles that have been placed in front of the Port of Los Angeles in implementing its landmark program to clean up the dilapidated fleet of jalopy trucks that service the ports. Among the myriad of tough factors that have led to this skid in the road, the article references one obstacle that could be eradicated through simple good government practices-namely, the Federal Maritime Commission halting its full court press to stop the ports from succeeding in cleaning up the air. My blog post and a blog post from my colleague, David Pettit, go into greater detail on this issue. If I could channel the ability of Doc Brown and Marty McFly to help me go back in time, I would show the Federal Maritime Commission Ron's article from today before it decided to effectively block the collection of the fee in December of 2008. Since that time, millions of dollars could have been collected to help alleviate the problems discussed in this article. But until NRDC scientists can develop a time machine -- believe me I have put in my request -- we are left with the current situation and an imperative that calls on the Federal Maritime Commission to stop its obstructionist behavior.

The Los Angeles Times article addresses many interesting issues, but I found quite intriguing the point that the economics of the port trucking system were hard to predict when the program was being developed. Some entities, including Federal Maritime Commission staff, economists, and even advocates assumed that independent drivers would be chomping at the bit to participate in incentive programs. These incentive programs that provide funds directly to independent drivers are facing some serious speed bumps too. For example, I spoke with a port driver yesterday. He told me that he had only two loads last week and earned a whopping $100 of take-home pay. Now, I was not a math major in college, but adding a loan payment, even on a heavily subsidized truck, would be hard to make under those conditions. I'm not saying all drivers couldn't make a payment on a subsidized new truck, but I acknowledge that we are facing some tough times to implementing clean up programs. However, this acknowledgement of speed bumps should not be taken to mean that we should not continue these efforts. The imperative to clean up the toxic air near the ports must continue because cleaning up this system will only get harder the longer we wait.

There was no question that cleaning up the ports would result in hiccups along the way. As today's article noted, the task the ports of LA and Long Beach face is massive, and the ports should be applauded, not ridiculed, for undertaking this effort. These air pollution measures installed at the ports have never been previously attempted at any other port, let alone the busiest ports in the country. The naysayers are probably sitting back on the sidelines saying "I told you so." But, let them flap their mouths. For decades, the goods movement industry has used the Southland's air as its sewer system to emit the noxious fumes that have resulted in many premature deaths, asthma cases, missed school days and many other impacts to residents and it's time they stop. To be fair, it has also employed many people and created viable economic opportunities for some, but we have the technology and incentives available to allow both for expanded commerce at the ports and clean air programs. So the success of the clean trucks program is not only needed to help the bank statements of the port trucking companies mentioned in Ron's article, but also to help the lungs of residents near the ports and freight freeways. Me personally, I am rooting for a win by the ports in tackling this huge problem.

Is the Seventh Time a Charm? Federal Maritime Commission Will Decide Whether to Place Industry Profits Over the Lives of Angelinos

2009-01-21T17:53:20Z

The opaque halls of the Federal Maritime Commission will be active in February when it must decide whether to continue its path of obstructionism and block the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach from collecting a clean truck fee, virtually crippling the landmark clean trucks program at the ports.

Last week, the Commission denied a request to expedite the review of the "Port Check" agreement, which would allow for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to receive container fees to fund the replacement or retrofit of the decrepit, filthy trucks that service the ports. The Commission vote was 2-1 to continue the needless delay in reviewing an agreement that will literally save many lives. As the dissenter, Commissioner Brennan noted in his press release, "the refusal by the Commission majority to expedite its review of the Port Fee Services Agreement represents the sixth time that the majority has voted to, in effect, delay or block aspects of the Ports' environmental program." On February 13, the Commission's review period will be complete, and the agency must decide whether it wants to continue to block progress on clean air or work for the public interest and allow the critical clean truck fee to move forward.

I am hopeful that the Commission will not try to block the fee. As the Journal of Commerce analyzes a recent court filing by the Commission, "[t]he FMC told the court that its concern is not with the impact of the ports' agreement on environmental and public health benefits." Attempting to block the clean truck fee will be a direct contradiction of these affirmations made to a federal judge. However, my assumptions about good governance by an agency have been wrecked repeatedly as the majority continues to stall and block any and all progress by the ports to reduce air pollution caused by the dilapidated fleet of 17,000 diesel trucks.

If history provides a lesson about how this will shake out, the Commission decision on the Port Check Agreement will happen close to February 13 in a hearing without public oversight. The public will not be apprised of what is happening until a press release announces the Commission's actions. There will be little detail or rationale provided as explanation for why the Commission acted the way it did. The preferred action here is for the Commission to allow the clock to run out on the review period, which means the agreement goes into effect and funds for cleaner trucks will be available.

Washington, D.C. is brimming with activity this week as our new president is sworn in. The message is of hope and progress, not delay and dirty air. Hopefully, the Commissioners and the Commission staff were watching the inauguration festivities instead of scheming how to deprive residents of Los Angeles and Long Beach from cleaner air.

Industry Lawsuit Threatens Our Health

2009-01-09T02:00:45Z

On Wednesday, the NRDC filed a motion asking the federal appeals court in D.C. to allow it to participate in a case examining whether state and local governments can protect residents from deadly air pollution produced by off-road engines (e.g. construction equipment, commercial ships, etc). It may seem an odd departure considering the last eight years of EPA shenanigans, but NRDC is intervening to help defend EPA's position (i.e. this is an instance where the Bush EPA did the right thing). The "controversy" arose when EPA decided to interpret the Clean Air Act exactly as it was written-to allow local and state governments to control pollution from off-road engines such as the engines that run construction equipment, marine vessels, recreational vehicles, and a whole host of other equipment. The American Road and Transportation Builders Association ("ARTBA"), a lobbyist group that boasts about its investment of "more than $1 million in environmental litigation on the industry's behalf" since 1993, did not like this decision, so it wants the federal appeals court in D.C. to hear this matter. ARTBA's main contention is that the Clean Air Act does not permit local and state governments to enact measures aimed at controlling this pollution. If successful, this petition could severely hamper several efforts across the nation to protect residents from harmful diesel pollution coming from the vast number of off-road engines and prevent many regions from meeting federal clean air standards.

To give you an example of the pollution levels we're looking at from these off-road engines, there are hundreds of thousands of pieces of off-road equipment in California ranging from lawn equipment to construction equipment to motor boats. Off-road disesel vehicles in California were responsible for approximately 1,100 premature deaths from their air pollution in 2005.

A prime example of the potential impact of this litigation would be on the health and welfare of Californians. In 2008, California passed a landmark regulation controlling pollution from construction and other equipment. Local agencies have followed up with other programs aimed at beating back at the toxic pollution emitted by these off-road engines too. Without these regulations, places like the Los Angeles region and the San Joaquin Valley will be doomed to continue to persist in a smog-stew. It has been estimated that off-road equipment accounted for approximately 35 percent of the Nitrogen Oxides (known as NOx and a precursor to smog) emissions in the Los Angeles region. Also, if nothing is done to control pollution from off-road engines, that percentage will rise sharply to 55 percent. Because too much is at stake in this lawsuit, NRDC decided to ask the court to participate in the proeceedings to ensure it understands the need to preserve Congress' intent to allow state and local governments to protect residents from this lethal pollution.

Building a Regional Movement One Container At A Time

2008-12-24T19:37:19Z

Professor Martha Matsuoka from Occidental College published a very interesting article in Race, Poverty, & the Environment (a project of: Urban Habitat) about the clean and safe ports campaign and the building of regional power "to redefin[e] regional development, [develop] regional scale coalitions, and [rework] power to transform the way the economy works." The article uses several examples from California and beyond to describe how coalition work can help groups with varying interests create blueprints for regions that are more sustainable and equitable. This article could not have come at a better time as we are about to embark on changes and struggles that will define our nation for a long time. Whether it is rebuilding our economy, battling global warming, or rebuilding the infrastructure we use, there appears to be a desire to create a new approach to how our nation works. Professor Matsuoka points out that as these regional coalitions are strengthened, there are new stakeholders with points of views that can no longer be ignored or marginalized.

A particularly important part of the article states:

By redefining the terms of the debate, by engaging in coalitions, and building power (in the face of tremendous odds), Port and goods movement campaigns fuel social movement regionalism and advance the potential for new regional economic development, just community development, and the advancement of progressive national politics.

As we welcome into office a new administration in D.C., it will be important to build on this regional movement that Professor Matsuoka articulates in her article. For example, the era of unconscionable freight practices needs to end. As these regional coalitions now monitor the goods movement system, we need to make sure these interests have a seat at the table in determining how development occurs in the freight system and how to mitigate its impacts (whether environmental or economic). We should aspire to have a freight system that does not stomp on certain communities to provide products that are pennies cheaper to others.

A lot of technology exists to clean up the diesel pollution spewed by the freight system (e.g. cleaner trucks, cleaner fuels for ships, etc.), and we are on the cusp of developing some other technologies that will take us even further in creating a better freight system (e.g. electrified container movement systems). Bringing our freight system into the 21st century is not an easy task because there are many frantically clinging onto the old, inequitable system. However, I hope that in the next decade, we can achieve the ultimate goal articulated at the end of Professor Matsuoka's article -- "good jobs and clean air."

Boondoggles or Blue Chips—How We Should Invest Transportation Dollars

2008-12-18T23:14:22Z

I had the pleasure to attend a meeting in New York last week sponsored by the Regional Plan Association related to the upcoming federal transportation reauthorization bill. The meeting was designed to examine what America's transportation system should look like in 2050 and what steps need to be taken now to get us there. Inevitably, throughout the gathering the issue of the economic stimulus continually arose. At the end of the three day meeting, the participants developed a set of recommendations for this stimulus. One of the goals of the group was to prevent the "porkfest" that Deron Lovaas, NRDC's Federal Transportation Policy Director, warns about on his blog. These recommendations provide a very solid framework on which to make decisions about transportation investments.

We are at a crossroads in terms of the American transportation system. Our leaders are faced with some choices as they contemplate how to spend hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer's money. We can create a transportation system that meets the needs of all residents, which means reducing greenhouse gas pollution, fostering our energy security, reducing traditional air pollutants, and providing a safe, reliable means to get from point A to B. Or, we can fund a bunch of boondoggles that will not result in a more efficient transportation system. (By the way, one of the meeting participants taught me the origin of how the term boondoggle came to be known as a project that wastes time and money-see 1935 New York Times article). I hope our leaders will choose the former.

I also want to quickly hit on an issue that is often overlooked in the national transportation debate, the movement of freight. It is easy to forget about the system that moves freight to our store shelves. There is a dark side to this segment of the transportation system because communities throughout the nation are suffering the impacts from the immense amount of diesel pollution caused by freight movement (see e.g. the example of communities hammered by pollution in Southern California). We need to make sure that the national freight system works to minimize the impacts from moving TVs, toys, key chains, and other products on communities near freight centers (e.g. railyards, distribution centers, and ports).

In the end, there needs to be accountability for all projects. Good projects that achieve the objectives mentioned above need to be funded. And Congress should create a boondoggle resting place to toss to the side those projects that do not achieve our objectives.