New Heavy Electric Truck for California

By Karen Robes Meeks

Toyota, Kenworth, the Port of Los Angeles and the California Air Resources Board unveiled the first fuel cell electric heavy-duty truck created jointly by Toyota and Kenworth, earlier this week. Ten trucks will be deployed as part of the Zero and Near-Zero Emissions Freight Facilities Project.

According to the Port, this new version offers an estimated range of more than 300 miles per fill, twice that of a typical drayage trucks average daily duty cycle. It will move cargo from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

The project received $41 million in funding from CARB.

“This substantial climate investment by the state, matched by the project partners, will help speed up the number of zero-emission trucks in the California communities and neighborhoods where they are needed the most,” said CARB Chair Mary D. Nichols. “It will provide a real world at-work demonstration of innovative heavy-duty fuel-cell electric technologies. The project offers a commercial solution to move cargo and freight around the state using zero-emission trucks and equipment that protect air quality and cut climate-changing emissions.”

Hueneme Gets CARB Funding

By Karen Robes Meeks

The Port of Hueneme secured $3 million from the California Air Resources Board toward its ship-to-shore energy project, part of a joint application with the Port of Los Angeles. Hueneme port will match $200,000 in funding toward the project.

“This type of funding allows our ports to continue to lead the world in reducing emissions and implementing green initiatives,” said Mary Anne Rooney, president of the Oxnard Harbor District. “It was a pleasure to partner with the Port of Los Angeles on this application, as it is a great example of how two ports, two air districts, two counties, and various private partners can come together to make real positive impacts for our environment and local communities.”

Besides two electric yard trucks, the grant will fund the infrastructure needed to make charging electric cargo handling equipment possible, according to the port.

“The projects funded by this grant will lay the foundation for the next phase of green infrastructure and equipment at the port, which will support electric cranes, electric cargo handling equipment, and a hydrogen-fuel-cell truck dedicated to moving our customer’s fresh produce to the marketplace,” said Port Director and CEO Kristin Decas. “You will be seeing zero-emission avocados, bananas, and pineapples coming out of the Port soon!”

CARB Sets Sights on Hydrogen Power

By Karen Robes Meeks

A $5.3 million grant from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) will be used to bring online hydrogen- and electric-powered cargo-handling equipment to two shipping terminals at the Port of Long Beach.

SSA Marine’s Pacific Container Terminal at Pier J will demonstrate two battery-electric cargo-moving vehicles known as “top handlers” while Long Beach Container Terminal at Pier E will test out one hydrogen fuel-cell yard tractor, one battery-electric top handler and one battery-electric yard tractor. The project will provide an opportunity for a head-to-head comparison between the hydrogen fuel cell and battery-electric systems.

“Our partnerships with the California Air Resources Board and other agencies provide crucial funding for these vital demonstration projects as we work to create a zero-emissions seaport,” said Port of Long Beach Executive Director, Mario Cordero.

“The progress we’ve made in reducing pollution is a model for seaports everywhere, with diesel emissions alone down almost 90 percent since we adopted the Clean Air Action Plan in 2005,” said Harbor Commission President Lou Anne Bynum. “Still, we are not satisfied. This equipment will further contribute to a cleaner environment for our neighboring communities.”

Equipment testing is expected to begin next year.

Electric Trucks at Oakland

By Karen Robes Meeks

This September, trucking company GSC Logistics will launch a three-year pilot program to test an all-electric big rig at the Port of Oakland, Calif.

GSC, considered the port’s biggest motor carrier handling the annual equivalent of 100,000 TEUs in Northern California and Nevada, will conduct the testing to see if zero-emission freight hauling is attainable.

The truck, which possesses a 100-mile battery range, will move import containers from the port’s marine terminals to a nearby yard and will be able to plug in at a charging station installed by the company.

“The purpose of the demo is to prove that battery-operated trucks can work in real world applications and port operations,” said GSC CEO Scott Taylor. “Depending on the efficiency, reliability, productivity and economics of battery-powered trucks, GSC would certainly entertain the possibility of integrating them into our fleet in the future,” he said.

This testing is sponsored by the California Air Resources Board, which last year began the zero-emission truck trial and is sponsoring the demonstration of five battery-operated trucks in Southern California in conjunction with the Oakland study.

“We’re out to prove that zero-emission, battery-powered trucks can be used in heavy-duty applications,” said Andy Swanton of subsidiary BYD California, whose company is manufacturing the trucks.

POLA, Pasha Launching Zero Emissions Project

By Mark Edward Nero

Pasha Stevedoring and Terminals and the Port of Los Angeles said May 26 that they’re jointly launching the Green Omni Terminal Demonstration Project, a full-scale, real-time demonstration of zero and near-zero emission technologies at a working marine terminal.

At full build out, the Pasha terminal would be the world’s first marine terminal able to generate all of its energy needs from renewable sources, according to the port. The $26 million project is partly funded by a $14.5 million grant from the California Air Resources Board.

“This is a Wright Brothers moment,” Pasha Senior Vice President Jeffrey Burgin said. “We’re going to be the proving ground to change the paradigm of how large industrial facilities can run on clean energy.”

Project implementation begins in June with the final design and construction of a solar-powered microgrid. As part of the project, Pasha will integrate a fleet of new and retrofitted zero-emission electric vehicles and cargo-handling equipment into its terminal operations and demonstrate the latest generation of advanced technology for capturing ship emissions from vessels unable to plug into shore power at berth.

“It’s exciting to see a project with so many emerging zero or near-zero emission solutions for handling and moving freight,” Air Board Chair Mary Nichols said in a statement.

The project also features a microgrid that includes solar generation, battery storage and an energy management system to maximize usage.

The 40-acre terminal handles general, project and heavy-lift cargoes of all shapes and sizes, including break bulk commodities such as steel and containerized cargo, making it what the port calls “the ideal laboratory” for developing zero-emission solutions for many industries.

The project’s developmental fleet of zero-emission cargo handling equipment includes four electrified yard tractors, two high-tonnage forklifts, two drayage trucks and a top handler. Additionally, two wharf cranes will be upgraded with new electrical drives and control systems, and the project will demonstrate ShoreCat, the next generation of the METS-1 (Marine Exhaust Treatment System) for capturing at-berth vessel emissions without plugging into shore power.

METS-1, which was piloted at the Port of Los Angeles, is one of just two existing CARB-approved alternatives to shore power.

The comprehensive strategy is expected to reduce more than 3,200 tons per year of greenhouse gases and nearly 28 tons annually of diesel particulate matter, nitrogen oxides and other harmful emissions from operations at the port, equal to taking 14,100 cars off the road.

The total cost of the project is $26.6 million. Pasha has committed $11.4 million, in addition to serving as the demonstration site.

The project plans call for phasing in the new infrastructure and technology by the end of 2016, with zero and near-zero emission equipment subject to the same duty cycles of conventional cargo handling equipment. Data collection and analysis to track energy efficiency improvements and cost savings are expected to take place over the next two years.

Shipper Fined $130K for Clean Air Violations

By Mark Edward Nero

The California Air Resources Board said March 3 that it has fined the China Navigation Co. $129,500 for failing to switch its engines over from heavy diesel “bunker” fuel to cleaner, low-sulfur fuel when close to the California coast, as required by state law.

The case originated in December 2012, CARB says, when one of its inspectors found that the vessel Chenan, managed by the China Navigation Co., operated within regulated California waters – i.e. 24 miles or less from the coast – on noncompliant heavy fuel oil on 12 separate days (four voyages) between Aug. 5 and Dec. 28, 2012, while en route to and departing from the Port of Los Angeles.

China Navigation, according to CARB, took “prompt action” after being notified of the violations and cooperated with the investigation. In addition to paying a fine, the company agreed to comply with all fuel switchover requirements and to keep accurate records going forward.

“Ships using heavy diesel fuels are a significant contributor to California’s air quality problems, even in communities located far from our coast,” CARB Enforcement Division Chief Todd Sax said. “That’s why we check vessels nearly every day to ensure that they are compliant with our strict clean air laws. When we identify a violation, we educate the fleet owner and crew on how to comply with our requirements, and we assess penalties as a deterrent to future noncompliance.”

The Air Resources Board says it conducts 800 to 1,000 ship inspections each year, checking for proper fuel usage, record-keeping and other compliance requirements. Part of the inspection involves sampling each vessel’s fuel, and analyzing the fuel sample for compliance with fuel sulfur requirements.

The state’s Ocean Going Vessel Fuels Regulation was adopted in 2008.

Pollution-Scrubbing Tech Approved

By Mark Edward Nero

The California Air Resources Board has approved a new technology by an LA-area company that uses specialized barges that connect to the exhaust ports of container ships to scrub pollution.

Advanced Cleanup Technologies Inc. can now market AMECS to vessel operators as an alternative to container ships plugging into the electrical grid to reduce emissions while at berth.

Container and cruise ships must significantly reduce at-berth emissions to meet state regulations, but the existing “shore power” option requires retrofits to each vessel. According to ACTI, the AMECS barge system can meet the state standards by removing 90 to 99 percent of harmful emissions of nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter without requiring vessel retrofits.

The California Air Resources Board’s approval of AMECS on container ships now allows ACTI to begin the process of testing the system on other vessel types.

In 2013, the Port of Long Beach provided about $2 million in seed money to help test the Advanced Maritime Emissions Control System, or AMECS.

“We’re thrilled any time we can find more tools to reduce emissions and continue to improve community health. That’s why we fund projects like the demonstration and testing of these new technologies, through our Technology Advancement Program,” Long Beach Harbor Commission President Lori Ann Guzmán said. “We’ve made a lot of progress in reducing air pollution, and we are nurturing new technologies like these to help us do even more.”

Shippers Fined for Violating Fuel Regulation

Three international shipping companies have been fined a combined $440,250 for failing to switch from bunker fuel to cleaner, low-sulfur marine distillate fuel upon entering regulated waters as required by California law, a state regulatory agency said August 12.

According to the California Air Resources Board, an investigation showed that on 17 visits to California ports between Nov. 6, 2009 and July 18, 2011, the vessel Hoegh Inchon operated its main engines within regulated California waters on bunker fuel, the dirtier fuel oil that contributes to onshore pollution levels of diesel particulate matter, sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides.

The vessel’s parent company, Oslo, Norway-based Hoegh Autoliners Shipping AS, was fined $299,500.

In February 2013, prior to docking at the ports of Stockton and Long Beach, the Ikan Bawal was cited for failing to switch its engines over to the required cleaner fuel while operating within California waters. Its owner, NCN Corporation Panama, was fined $87,750.

In August 2012, after it docked at the Port of Los Angeles, the vessel K-Pluto was also cited for failing to switch to the required cleaner fuel while operating within state waters. Its parent company, Singapore-based Twin Phoenix Shipping SA, was fined $53,000.

The Air Board says all three companies complied with the investigation and agreed to abide by all pertinent regulations in the future, follow fuel switchover requirements and keep accurate records.

“Ships en route to California ports emit thousands of tons of diesel exhaust each year,” ARB Enforcement Chief Jim Ryden said in an August 12 statement. “Our regulation requiring ocean-going vessels to switch to cleaner fuel within 24 nautical miles of our shoreline protects all California residents, especially those in port communities, from this air pollution.”

The ARB’s Ocean-Going Vessel Regulation was adopted in 2008. The Air Board estimates that the compliance rate is around 95 percent and that it eliminates 15 tons of diesel particulate matter daily from ocean-going vessels’ exhaust.

The says it ARB conducts more than 500 ship inspections each year, checking for proper fuel usage, record-keeping and other compliance requirements, and takes marine gas oil or marine diesel oil samples for submission to the ARB laboratory to ensure they meet California standards for sulfur.

Diesel Truck Filter Company Goes Under

Cleaire Inc., a Southern California-based company that had manufactured diesel particulate filters used in some drayage trucks hauling goods to and from seaports in California, Washington and elsewhere, has suddenly and quietly ceased operations, leaving those with its products in their trucks without warranty support.

Cleaire, which was headquartered in San Leandro and had manufacturing operations in San Diego, made no public announcement of its going out of business, but in a letter to Cleaire customers, the California Air Resources Board stated that the company ceased operations on Jan. 18, 2013.

The Air Board also says it’s working to help those affected by the situation, specifically fleets, dealers and parts suppliers, and that truck owners stuck without warranty support will be given exemptions from CARB’s mandatory diesel particulate filter retrofitting program for older, more polluting trucks.

“Vehicles that have the Cleaire devices already installed in a verified configuration will continue to meet applicable in-use fleet rule requirements,” the letter reads in part. “For Cleaire customers, ARB is working directly with Cleaire distributors, installers, and other authorized representatives to minimize impacts on warranty service and to ensure that fleets have compliance options if replacement parts are unavailable.”

Although no official reason has been given for the company’s failure, the quality of Cleaire’s products had been questioned in the past: a 3,500 acre brush fire in September 2011 was blamed by Washington state officials on flaming sparks from a Cleaire filter onboard a truck. The Monastery Fire, as it was called, caused $5.4 million in damage and resulted in the company recalling a specific model of diesel particulate filters.

Then, in October 2012, the company voluntarily recalled another type of filter after a three-acre brush fire caused by the model two months earlier.

Calif. Gov. Vetoes Shore Power Bill

California Gov. Jerry Brown has vetoed a bill that would have required the state Air Resources Board to reimburse 90 percent of project costs of certain shore power electrification projects. In its place, he issued an executive order mandating the ARB amend its program guidelines.

Senate Bill 234, which was returned without the governor’s signature Sept. 25, would have mandated that each port pay the retrofit costs upfront and then the state would reimburse funds on a quarterly basis. But in a statement explaining his veto, Brown said the legislation would have circumvented accountability standards.

“Allowing only a 10 percent withholding does not afford the necessary insurance that the state’s seaports have the commitment and resources necessary to see the project to completion,” he wrote.

The statement goes on to say that Brown has directed the Air Resources Board to amend its program guidelines to allow quarterly reimbursement of up to 80 percent of eligible costs under certain circumstances.

“We all share the goal of providing shore-side electrical power to ships at berth in order to reduce harmful emissions at and near the ports,” the governor wrote. “This is a solvable problem.”

Shore side power systems are being developed to comply with new California regulations requiring that ships anchored at ports throughout the state turn off their engines to limit emissions. Vessels will be required plug into equipment at the marine terminals, allowing them to shut down their diesel engines and reduce harmful air emissions.

In 2007, the ARB approved regulations mandating a reduction in emissions from diesel auxiliary engines on container, passenger and refrigerated cargo ships anchored at California ports. Under the rules, emissions must be reduced by 80 percent by 2020.

Port Trucks Receive Surprise Inspections in Oakland

California Air Resources Board conducted random inspections of drayage trucks moving through the Port of Oakland this week.

CARB inspectors were at the port Aug. 28 through 30 checking trucks, mostly via random selection to ensure they had the proper emission filters and were properly registered.

The inspections were part of the air board’s “Gear Up for Clean Truck Month” campaign, where various agencies, including the California Highway Patrol, team to ensure that rigs are complying with California’s air pollution laws.

“Our goal this month is to do everything in our power to make sure truckers know the rules and that they understand how to comply,” CARB Executive Officer James Goldstene said of the campaign.

CARB spokeswoman Beth White said that although some inspections at the port were random, some rigs were being targeted due to various reasons, such as if they were older models or were emitting black smoke.

Violators could be punished with fines ranging from $300 to $1,800 and include mandatory completion of an air pollution emissions course.

“Focusing on enforcement gives us the chance not only to educate drivers on why the regulations are important but also to ensure that truck owners investing in cleaner equipment are on a level playing field with those who are not playing by the rules,” Goldstene said.

Under CARB rules, all heavy-duty trucks with engines built before 2007 must be fitted with diesel filters that reduce certain kinds of emissions by more than 80 percent.

Two Ocean Carriers, LMC Fined By Calif. Air Regulators

California state air regulators have handed out more than $160,000 in fines over the past two weeks to three transportation-related firms for violations of state environmental laws.

Last week, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) fined two shipping lines for incidents in 2010 where one vessel from each carrier failed to switch from bunker fuel to cleaner-burning, low-sulfur fuel while sailing within 24 miles of the California coast, as required by state law.

The Switzerland-based Mediterranean Shipping Company and Poland-based Chipolbrok Shipping Company were each fined $53,000 by CARB. The November, 2010 violations involve calls at the Port of Long Beach by the MSC Aniello and Chipolbrok's vessel Wieniawski. According to CARB, both vessels used the more polluting bunker fuel "well within the 24-mile limit from the coast" where state law mandates the use of low-sulfur fuel by ocean going vessels.

CARB said that the low-sulfur fuel measure, adopted in 2008, eliminates 15 tons of diesel exhaust daily from ocean-going vessels, and the agency considers the measure "a vital tool in helping to reduce premature deaths and the risk of cancer associated with air pollution in the state’s busy ports and trade corridors."

As part of their settlements with ARB, MSC and Chipolbrok each agreed to pay their fines to the California Air Pollution Control Fund to support air quality research. The two firms must also follow all fuel switchover requirements, and maintain accurate records.

"Cargo vessels can burn some of the dirtiest fuels on the planet and we need to make sure that their engine emissions don't reach our coast," ARB Enforcement Chief James Ryden said in announcing the fines.

"Our fuel regulation is vitally important because it requires shippers to switch to cleaner-burning fuels that help fight air pollution in our coastal regions and port communities."

On August 29, CARB also announced a $59,050 fine against Ontario, Calif.-based motor carrier IVVE Transportation for dispatching trucks not compliant with the emission standards set forth in ARB’s Drayage Truck Regulation.

The regulations, adopted in December 2007 to cut diesel emissions by port-servicing drayage trucks, prohibit the use of pre-1994 model year trucks from servicing ports or rail facilities. The regulations also require 1995 to 2006 trucks to be retrofit with diesel exhaust filters. The regulation also requires that by 2014 all vehciles used in drayage must be 2007 or newer models.

Under the settlement with IVVE Transportation, $44,287.50 of the firm's fine will go to the California Air Pollution Control fund to support air quality research, and $14,762.50 to the Peralta Community College district to help fund diesel education classes around the state. The motor carrier also agreed to cease operating non-compliant vehicles.

"It is especially important for companies involved in moving freight to use the cleanest engines they can afford since they spend so much time on our roads and highways," ARB’s Ryden said.

"We commend businesses that acknowledge their mistakes and then move in the right direction, such as IVVE Transportation. We have to make clean air a priority and that can only happen when businesses do whatever it takes to follow clean air regulations."

Appeals Court Upholds California's Low-Sulfur Maritime Fuel Regs

A federal appeals panel on Monday upheld a lower court ruling that allowed California air quality regulators in 2009 to impose regulations requiring commercial maritime vessels headed for California ports to use low-sulfur fuel within 24 miles of the state's coast.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that despite California only having legal jurisdiction over coastal waters out to three miles, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) maritime fuel-use regulations that were approved April 19, 2009 – designed to dramatically reduce air pollution from ocean going vessels – can legally be enforced by the state out to 24 miles.

"In the end, we acknowledge the unusual characteristics and circumstances of the [CARB regulations]," the Ninth Circuit said in its ruling. "We are clearly dealing with an expansive and even possibly unprecedented state regulatory scheme. However, the severe environmental problems confronting California – especially Southern California – are themselves unusual and even unprecedented."

The 2009 regulations were a rewrite of 2007 CARB regulations that sought to address marine-generated diesel emissions by setting specific emission levels permitted by ocean-going vessels. The 2007 regulations were challenged in court by the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA) and eventually determined by the courts to be preempted by the federal Clean Air Act.

In an effort to work around the court ruling, CARB rewrote the regulations to specify the type of fuel to be used by ocean-going vessels, instead of specifying set emission standards as it did in 2007.

The PMSA, which represents nearly all of the shipping lines calling at North American West Coast ports, sued CARB again in late-April 2009 to block implementation of the newly rewritten fuel regulations arguing that the state does not have jurisdiction beyond the three-mile coastal zone. While not objecting to the environmental goals of the regulations, the PMSA also argued that more universal nationwide and international regulations were the more appropriate way to tackle ocean-going vessel pollution and prevent, in the PMSA's opinion, a patchwork of regulations that differ from state to state.

The day before the CARB regulations were set to go into effect on July 1, 2009, the US District Court for the Eastern District of California turned down the PMSA request for an injunction and request for summary judgment. CARB subsequently implemented the regulations as planned.

In mid-July, 2009, the PMSA filed with the District Court seeking to modify the court's ruling and allow the trade group to seek an immediate appeal. The lower court approved the PMSA modification, citing that there was "substantial ground for difference of opinion" within the case. After nearly a year of preparatory legal action, the Ninth Circuit heard arguments on the appeal from both sides in early December 2010.

In their ruling issued Monday, the appellate panel found that the PMSA failed to support its two main points: that the 2009 CARB regulations are preempted by the federal Submerged Lands Act of 1953, and that the regulations are preempted by the US Constitution's Commerce Clause, as well as, general maritime law.

In response to the Ninth Circuit ruling, PMSA President John McLaurin expressed his disappointment with the ruling.

"The state’s requirements on how vessels must be operated 24 nautical miles off-shore, when the state’s jurisdiction ends only three miles beyond the coastline, remains a unique attempt to expand its authority. The ruling handed down today by the Ninth Circuit panel is without precedent and only reaffirms that this is a novel application of state authority."

McLaurin added that the maritime industry will meet all state, federal and international laws and will continue "working in earnest" to reduce environmental impacts.

"Even after this ruling," McLaurin said, "it is only through the application of consistent and harmonized federal and international standards that meaningful and sustainable emission reductions from ships engaged in international trade on the high seas will be obtained.”

In the end, though, the nearly four-year effort to impose California-specific standards on ocean-going vessels may be somewhat of a short-lived victory.

Almost a year to the day before Monday's ruling, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) approved a Canada/US joint proposal to set up an Emissions Control Area (ECA) along the East and West coasts of both countries under Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). This treaty, among other things, specifies fuel sulfur-content for ocean-going vessels. MARPOL Annex VI regulations are now accepted as the base minimum for permissible vessel fuel quality and air emissions by 136 signatory countries representing 98 percent of the world’s shipping tonnage. The Annex VI regulations apply to all vessels traveling into MARPOL signatory-member waters and to all vessels flying under signatory nation flags. Even a non-signatory nation’s vessel entering the national waters of a MARPOL signatory state are required to adhere to the Annex VI regulations.

The 2009 CARB regulations upheld Monday currently require ocean-going vessels headed to California ports to use fuel with sulfur content between 0.3 percent and 1.5 percent when within 24 miles of the coast. This standard drops to 0.1 percent as of January 1, 2012. The CARB regulations also do not apply to vessels transiting within 24 miles of the coast that are not calling at California ports.

When the IMO's North American ECA goes into effect in August 2012, all ocean-going vessels within the 200-mile ECA will be required to use fuel with no more than 1 percent sulfur. This drops to 0.1 percent on January 1, 2015.

Even the Ninth Circuit noted in its ruling that the CARB regulations are most likely to be superseded by the kind of universal solution originally argued for by the PMSA.

"The [CARB regulations] also contain a sunset clause, and it is reasonable to predict," said the court, "that once the heightened standards established by the ECA go into effect, the [CARB regulations] will be terminated."

While the aggregate costs to the shipping industry to comply with the CARB rules will be large, the Ninth Circuit pointed out that there was no dispute among the litigants that the health benefits to the residents of the state will also be dramatic.

During testimony, CARB estimated that compliance with the CARB fuel standards would cost vessel operators $30,000 per California port “call,” amounting to an industry-wide aggregate incremental cost of approximately $360 million annually and $1.5 billion through the end of 2014. The court noted, however, that CARB found that individual cost per container would amount to about $6 per TEU.

On the other hand, CARB also testified that their fuel regulations would prevent 300 premature deaths each year in the state and 150,000 cases of respiratory illness.

EPA Seeks Public Comment on Review of California Goods Movement Regulations

The United States Environmental Protection Agency plans to review whether the California state air regulator properly adopted stringent emission rules on port and rail cargo handling equipment used within the state.

The California Air Resources Board approved the regulations back in December 2005. The rules require on-road cargo handling vehicles to be fitted with the "best available control technology" to reduce emissions. Off-road vehicles, such as mobile cranes or yard tractors, are also required to be fitted with the highest level of emissions control available.

Normally, federal air quality regulation supersedes state regulations under the Clean Air Act, but California is the only state to have a waiver from the EPA. The EPA is now seeking public comment to help the agency determine if the California rules comply with the federal Clean Air Act and whether California should require a new waiver to cover the 2005 rules.

The agency is accepting public comment through March 17, but has scheduled a hearing in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 17. The EPA said it would cancel the hearing if no interested party requests it by Feb. 7.

California Air Regulators Claim Success in Reducing Freight Emissions

The California Air Resources Board is claiming success in a wide range of pollution reduction programs that have targeted goods movement statewide and, according to the agency, dramatically cut diesel emissions along major trade corridors and near ports.

CARB Executive Director James Goldstene cited success in CARB programs addressing trucks, rail and ships, all under the umbrella of the state's Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program. The overall program is supported by $1 billion in voter-approved Proposition 1B bonds, of which $450 million has already been allocated.

More than 5300 diesel trucks traveling the state’s busiest trade routes are being cleaned up, said Goldstene. In addition, 19 locomotives operating in the Central Valley and Southern California are being upgraded, and clean electrical power will be available this spring for ships docking at the Port of Oakland thanks to $250 million as part of implementation of CARB’s goods movement program.

"We estimate that these projects will eliminate more than 3 million pounds of diesel soot plus 60 million pounds of smog-forming pollutants from our environment over the next few years," said Goldstene.

Goldstene also touted the success of the GMER program to leverage substantial matching funds from private, local and federal sources - more than one match dollar for every program dollar invested.

"This leveraging has resulted in an additional $300 million above and beyond the Prop 1B bond funds to aid in overseeing pollution reduction projects through to their completion within the next few years," said Goldstene.

To update the 5300 trucks -- including those that service the state's three major ports of Long Beach, Los Angeles and Oakland--older trucks have been replaced with new diesel models or those powered by natural gas meeting cleaner 2007 or later emission standards.

In the four trade corridors targeted by the GMER program (Bay Area, Central Valley, Los Angeles/Inland Empire, San Diego/Border), most equipment owners opted to replace their trucks. However, in the Bay Area, a majority of the port drayage truck owners chose to retrofit their vehicles with diesel soot filters that trap at least 85 percent of particulate emissions.

In a shift from many previous programs, one-third of the trucks that received program funding are owned by independent owner-operators, and half of the funded vehicles are in fleets of 20 or fewer trucks, considered in California to be a small or medium-sized fleet.

Additional cleanup activities focusing on installing clean electric power for ships at dock will get underway as air districts start soliciting for over $80 million in projects in early 2011. CARB allocated an additional $112 million for more truck cleanup efforts, with smaller grants to be available to clean up locomotives and harbor craft such as tug boats.

California Scales Back Regulations Due to Bad Estimates

The California Air Resources Board last week announced they would scale back impending regulations regarding off-road diesel vehicles after a study found that data used as the basis for the regulations overestimated the levels of air pollution created by the vehicles by 340 percent.

The regulations were originally adopted in July 2007 and called for engine upgrades and/or the installation of retrofit pollution-control devices on hundreds of thousand of construction and other off-road diesel vehicles starting this year.
In anticipation of the regulations' first-phase deadlines this year, the construction industry is estimated to have spent $10 billion to $12 billion to upgrade their vehicles to the new standards.

On Thursday, CARB officials announced revisions to the original calculations and said that enforcement of the regulations would now be delayed until at least 2014. There will also be a widening of the number of vehicles eligible for exemptions, the agency said.

CARB, which researches and sets air quality standards statewide, said that the overestimate was due to the board calculations of future off-road vehicle pollution generation prior to the economic downturn. Since the global financial meltdown and the resulting collapse in the California construction industry, many of the state's 150,000 such vehicles have wound up sitting idle.

Independent researchers from the University of California, Berkeley and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory first discovered the overestimate and found that the CARB error was not due to the economic downturn but mainly to faulty methods of calculation. The researchers found that even prior to the downturn, CARB's estimates were too high by 310 percent to 450 percent.

The CARB estimates were originally based on the calculation that off-road vehicles and machinery would burn about 1 billion gallons of fuel a year. A revised estimate calculates the amount of fuel to be used at about 228 million gallons- 340 percent lower.

It is the second time in as many months that CARB has had to backtrack on pollution-related estimates.

In late August, CARB officials announced that a CARB researcher had falsified his academic credentials, throwing into doubt his work on developing estimates of statewide premature deaths due to air pollution. A subsequent investigation found the researcher's estimates of 18,000 premature deaths a year due to air pollution were grossly overestimated, with the real calculation being nearly 50 percent less. The statistics were eventually used as the basis for the adoption of some CARB regulations.

Special Feature: The State of the Port Environment

By: T.L. Garrett (As seen in the December issue of Pacific Maritime Magazine)

For many years now ports have been the target of extensive criticism regarding their environmental impacts. They were generally characterized as the largest and least regulated sources of pollution. In many ways the criticism was accurate, but it was a reflection of the lack of regulatory focus on Port sources. Let’s be honest, it took the International Maritime Organization (IMO) well over a decade to develop the first air quality standards for vessels. Those standards were limited to reflect the emission levels of existing vessels and marine fuels, hardly technology forcing. EPA took even longer to regulate vessels and when they did they adopted the same international standards and then limited them to US flagged vessels.

States, on the other hand, generally took the position that regulating vessels was outside their jurisdiction and relied on federal and international regulation to control those sources. Meanwhile Ports were experiencing incredible levels of growth, a doubling and tripling of “throughput” amidst these modest regulatory developments. Ocean-carriers were responding to that growth by ordering and deploying larger, faster vessels to serve the ever-increasing global demand for goods without any meaningful air quality requirements. In short, something had to give and the stage was set for dramatic changes.

Initially, pushing for change was incredibly difficult because of several factors: The lack of regulations, and more importantly, the lack of available technology to reduce emissions. Reliability, durability, efficiency, and economies of scale were the primary drivers for vessel engine design, not emission control. These goals are not exclusive of each other; indeed the platform, the diesel engine, was already meeting the major objectives by being the most efficient engine available resulting in lower energy consumption compared to any other form of transportation engine. But that is not enough if public health and green house gas goals are to be achieved.

Enter the era of voluntary measures. Recognizing that change was coming and having a desire to minimize the need for regulations terminal operators and ocean-carriers initiated voluntary programs and participated in those created by port authorities. Tugboat repowers and purchase of alternative fuel yard tractors began in the late 1990’s under the Carl Moyer diesel replacement incentive program in California. This was quickly followed by the Voluntary Ship Speed Reduction Program in Southern California that began in 2001. The Port of Los Angeles then initiated a voluntary retrofit program in 2002 that resulted in more than 1,200 cargo handling equipment pieces being equipped with diesel oxidation catalysts. The first contracts were signed only days after the California Air Resources Board (CARB) certified the equipment. Meanwhile, the Pacific Northwest ports worked with customers and others to produce a comprehensive emissions inventory and strategy that targeted goals and voluntary efforts including many of the same things (retrofits, cleaner fuel use, shore power, etc.). Combined with the innovative use of emulsified diesel fuel, a technology that has now been left behind, these initial steps ensured that growth at the ports could continue while actually reducing overall emissions.

As early as 2002, ships began using low-sulfur distillate fuel in auxiliary generators. And the first shore-power project to shut down auxiliary generators and connect to the electrical grid was a voluntary industry effort. Other ocean-carriers began experimenting with advanced injector technologies, electronically controlled engines, on-board fuel emulsification systems, waste heat recovery systems, on-board emission scrubbers, exhaust gas recirculation, selective catalytic reduction, alternative fuels, and renewable biofuels. The list continues to grow. These new engine technologies, combined with existing highly efficient engines are combined in larger vessels resulting in greater economies of scale to move increasing volumes of cargo even more efficiently.

These developments have not gone unnoticed by the regulators. Beginning in 2005, frustrated with the lack of national and international regulations to reduce emissions from goods movement sources, CARB initiated the first of a series of regulations to reduce emissions from cargo handling equipment, workboats, trucks, and vessels. All of these state regulations took the examples of successful voluntary incentive programs and made them mandatory requirements. For the most part these regulations have gone forward without opposition, and in some cases with the support of the sectors being regulated. These included the use of ultra-low sulfur fuel in advance of federal requirements, the retrofit and replacement of cargo handling equipment, the accelerated turnover of the drayage truck fleet, the repowering of workboats, and the requirement to connect vessels to grid-based shore power.

Where the industry has been in opposition has not been about the goals or even the methods to reduce emissions, it has been about the perceived abuse of authority or the avocation of specified technologies or fuels based on politics rather than science. The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association successfully challenged the CARB Auxiliary Fuel regulation on the basis that the state did not have authority to regulate vessels under the Clean Air Act without first getting authorization from the US EPA – which if CARB had pursued, would have created a defacto uniform national standard once the waiver was approved. Our current challenge to the Low-Sulfur Fuel regulation is about the authority to regulate vessels beyond the traditional three nautical mile limit under federal law. At the same time the industry has fully supported the approved and recently amended stringent regulations of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the establishment of a US/Canada Emission Control Area. The IMO regulations require the use of the same low-sulfur marine fuels as the CARB regulation, at a much greater distance from shore, 200 nautical miles (nm) versus 24 nm, and the requirement for future vessel engines to be 80 percent cleaner than those in use today. Not only will the implementation of these international requirements result in greater emission reductions than the CARB regulation, although three years later, they will also provide a much needed uniform regulatory scheme for all ports without placing a specific port at a competitive disadvantage.

With the increasing recognition of climate change the industry is already responding to the need to further reduce their carbon footprint. Although vessels are already by far the most efficient way to move the world’s goods, ocean-carriers have already recognized that the highly efficient engines and economies of scale are not enough. They have begun using better hull coatings to reduce drag, advanced propeller designs to improve efficiency, and futuristic hull designs. Technology is also being used to improve voyage planning to avoid adverse weather conditions and allow for optimized speed management that balances just-in-time delivery with minimal use of energy. Some companies are now deploying vessels with solar panel arrays, wind assist, hybrid diesel-electric propulsion, and even fuel cells. Dockside there is development of alternative fuel generators and stack-gas emission treatment systems that could be used where grid-based infrastructure does not exist.

This is just the beginning of the innovations to reduce the carbon and emission footprint of the industry. All of this development has occurred within the last decade and regulations are only now going into effect. Nonetheless, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach already have seen dramatic improvements as a result of these initial efforts. The most recent inventory completed for 2008 showed greater than a 30 percent reduction in diesel particulates and for sulfur oxides compared with the 2005 inventory. These emission reductions occurred even though cargo volume increased. Looking towards the future the same inventories showed even greater reductions in emissions per TEU between 23 to 35 percent for criteria pollutants when compared to 2005, demonstrating that efficiencies in cargo movement continue to improve. Further evidence of this was a decrease in green house gases from the previous levels. In the Pacific Northwest the ports are working with their customers to implement low sulfur fuel use at the dock, retrofits and cleaner fuel use for cargo handling equipment, shore power for cruise and more rapid phase out of older trucks and terminal equipment.

With all of the effort that is being expended and the new regulatory era on the horizon it seems clear that the maritime industry will continue to improve as the most efficient mode of transportation that is also increasingly environmentally friendly. Maybe it is time for a little more praise and a little less criticism.

PMSA represents the shipping lines and terminal operators that move approximately ninety percent of the containerized cargo on the West Coast of the United States. Mr. Garrett’s focus is primarily on air quality regulatory and legislative issues at all levels of government. He has extensive experience in reviewing air quality technical reports, regulations, and legislation, and providing input on behalf of PMSA members. Prior to PMSA he was an Environmental Supervisor for the Port of Los Angeles in charge of the Air Resources Section.