Possible new AQMD regulation causing concern at Ports of LA and Long Beach

Few issues have garnered as much concern and discussion in the past few decades as the pollution that emanates from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

Studies have consistently shown larger rates of athsma, cancer and heart problems in the communities surrounding the ports that are hubs for pollution-spewing trucks, terminal equipment and ships.

Both ports, working within timelines, have pursued ambitious programs to reduce emissions and have seen success.

Many environmentalists, however, say much more needs to be done.

Now, a proposal called the Ports Indirect Source (ISR) Rule No. 2304 is generating discussion and recently was the topic of a four-hour California State Assembly’s Select Committee on Ports and Goods Movement in San Pedro.

The regulation, still being crafted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD), is designed to establish requirements to reduce emissions from mobile sources related to marine port operations. A final draft is expected by the end of this.

The hearing, conducted on Sept. 26 at the Port of Los Angeles Administration Building, drew several panels of experts to testify as well as public speakers, all weighing in on the proposed ISR that some worry could effectively cap the amount of goods coming through the L.A./Long Beach gateway.

A second hearing by the committee, which is chaired by Assemblymember Mike Gipson, D-Carson, will be held at the Port of Oakland on Nov. 2.

Opponents have sounded the alarm over the proposal that they believe will curtail the economic benefits the ports provide and impact jobs. In an Aug. 25 letter, a coalition of a shipping, transportation and business interests have urged both Los Angeles and Long Beach mayors to oppose the proposal that is still undergoing a draft process but could be voted on by the regional air quality board in early 2024.

The letter stated that the rule would have a “devastating impact” on jobs, the nation’s supply chain, the state and local economy, and the efforts by the state to transition to zero-emission infrastructure.

The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association in a news release dated Aug. 30, warned that sending cargo shipments to Gulf or East Coast ports will result in an increase of greenhouse gas emissions.

Citing a study by Starcrest Consulting Group, the letter stated that the analysis “demonstrates that U.S. West Coast ports largely have an environmental advantage over East Coast and Gulf ports in the total (greenhouse gases) emitted per container.”

The AQMD disputes much of the criticism coming their way over the proposed rule, noting that it is still a work in progress and has not been finalized.

“There is no proposed rule that has been released,” AQMD Assistant Deputy of Communications Nahal Mogharabi said in a written response to a request for comments.

He called some of the criticism “grossly inaccurate rhetoric being spread by some in the industry.”

“It is clear,” Mogharabi’s statement continued, “that these comments are coming from a sector of the industry that is not interested in meaningful engagement to find solutions to reduce their emissions and impact on residents in our region.”

Several panels provided testimony at the state Assembly committee’s Sept. 26 hearing in the Port of Los Angeles, including the directors of both the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach who discussed the progress that has been made in cutting emissions through a joint Clean Air Action Plan approved in 2006 and the ongoing push to meet zero-emissions goals for terminal equipment by 2030 and the drayage truck fleet by 2035.

Port of Long Beach CEO Mario Cordero said at the hearing the ports have “stepped up” to address the pollution issues but continue to need federal and state investment and collaboration to go further.

“My point is, what more are you going to squeeze out of us and our stakeholders?” Cordero said, adding that the technology often is simply not yet available.

“We’re making tremendous progress,” Cordero said. “I’d ask for patience (from the regulatory agencies), to give us a couple more years.”

Simply put, major challenges remain, they and others in the industry said, including a still-evolving process to determine best technologies; the need — and high cost — to provide the needed infrastructure to handle zero-emissions equipment; and the lack of affordable and available equipment in the current zero-emissions marketplace which is still transitioning.

“It’s complex and it’s nuanced,” said Port of Los Angeles Executive Director Gene Seroka during the Assembly hearing. “We’ve got to keep working together and this does not need to be a polarizing conversation.”

As for cutting-edge equipment, Seroka said when asked if items are on order, “You can order anything you want, it doesn’t mean they’re going to be produced, going to be available or that there will be spare parts when needed.”

The overall task ahead, Seroka said, “is daunting.”

“Pubic officials must take a holistic approach when it comes to climate change policies,” said Thomas Jelenić, vice president of the PMSA in the group’s Aug. 30 news release. “Doing so is essential in keeping cargo and union jobs at the nation’s cleanest ports here on the West Coast, as well as ensuring that GHG emissions are simply to being shifted elsewhere.”