National Academies Press: OpenBook

Sustainability Strategies Addressing Supply-Chain Air Emissions (2014)

Chapter: Appendix C - Ports and the Coastal Context

« Previous: Appendix B - National Initiatives
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Ports and the Coastal Context." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Sustainability Strategies Addressing Supply-Chain Air Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22383.
×
Page 100
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Ports and the Coastal Context." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Sustainability Strategies Addressing Supply-Chain Air Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22383.
×
Page 101
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Ports and the Coastal Context." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Sustainability Strategies Addressing Supply-Chain Air Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22383.
×
Page 102
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Ports and the Coastal Context." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Sustainability Strategies Addressing Supply-Chain Air Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22383.
×
Page 103
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Ports and the Coastal Context." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Sustainability Strategies Addressing Supply-Chain Air Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22383.
×
Page 104
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Ports and the Coastal Context." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Sustainability Strategies Addressing Supply-Chain Air Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22383.
×
Page 105
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Ports and the Coastal Context." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Sustainability Strategies Addressing Supply-Chain Air Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22383.
×
Page 106
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Ports and the Coastal Context." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Sustainability Strategies Addressing Supply-Chain Air Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22383.
×
Page 107
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Ports and the Coastal Context." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Sustainability Strategies Addressing Supply-Chain Air Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22383.
×
Page 108
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Ports and the Coastal Context." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Sustainability Strategies Addressing Supply-Chain Air Emissions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22383.
×
Page 109

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

100 A P P E N D I X C Ports and the Coastal Context Introduction Ports are nodes in the supply-chain network, where con- centrations of goods movement occur. Ports and the areas that surround them are likely to experience air emissions impacts associated with freight movements due to the vol- ume of traffic that passes through them and along the road and rail corridors that connect them to other areas. Ports have developed various approaches to managing and mitigat- ing air emissions impacts. This case study cluster compares and contrasts the approaches of three ports: • The Port of Charleston, which has ambitious growth plans, is located in an area currently in attainment for air quality; • The Port of Houston, which is located in an ozone non- attainment area; and • The Port of Los Angeles (POLA), the nation’s busiest port, located in a region that suffers some of the worst air pollution in the country. Given the significant initiatives to regulate freight emis- sions in California, California is examined in detail, consid- ering the approaches taken to managing freight growth and air emissions in the South Coast region and across the state. Port of Charleston—Pledge for Growth Port Overview Operated by the South Carolina State Ports Authority (SCSPA), the Port of Charleston is the nation’s fourth busiest container port, handling about 1.4 million 20-foot equivalent units (TEUs) annually, as well as break-bulk. The SCSPA is undertaking a major expansion effort, investing nearly $1.3 bil- lion on capital projects, including a new, three-berth 280-acre container port, which will boost port capacity by 50 percent. The first phase of this development is underway. Although Charleston’s air currently meets federal quality standards, the SCSPA recognizes the link between port air emissions, air quality, and public health. As part of its plans for future growth, the port is taking steps to manage the impacts of its operations on the surrounding community. The SCSPA’s environment policy, “Pledge for Growth,” was developed through collaboration with partners. It pledges to manage impacts on air, land, water, and people resources with a $12.2 million environmental and community miti- gation program, including an air emissions–monitoring component. Initiatives The SCSPA’s proactive approach to addressing supply-chain air emissions includes a voluntary agreement with the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), designed to reduce port-related air impacts. This committed the SCSPA to the following actions: • Switching to ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel to power port equipment 3 years ahead of the federal mandate. This action reduced emissions from affected equipment by an estimated 10 percent. • Modifying operations to reduce turn times, minimizing the amount of time ships spend at berth and reducing at-berth emissions, reducing truck idling, and improv- ing crane operations. These combined efficiencies have decreased port-related air emissions. • Requiring port contractors to adopt best management practices in construction, including use of low-emission construction equipment, idling minimization, and dust control plans. • Implementing an air emissions inventory and ongoing mon- itoring, even though the Charleston area is in compliance with the Clean Air Act active air emissions, and monitoring is not a federal requirement.

101 • Implementing numerous programs, with partners, to reduce diesel emissions from drayage trucks and port cargo-handling equipment. The port estimates that over 2,310 tons of emissions will be reduced over the life of the projects. The SCSPA also has implemented an environmental manage- ment system to monitor environmental efforts going forward. This will include identifying further steps to reduce emissions, and SCSPA a full member of the Coalition for Responsible Transportation. Partnerships and Working Together The port is partnering with the following entities to improve air quality and reduce impacts on surrounding communities: • Public agencies—The SCSPA has developed a close working relationship with DHEC. Rather than submitting competing grant applications to the U.S. EPA, both parties collaborate on grant applications. This funding partnership allows the port and state DHEC to each leverage their available funds to common ends. • Maritime community—The SCSPA reached out to the port community offering assistance in providing access to public funding for emissions reductions. A tug boat operator, dredge company, and local trucking company responded. SCSPA incorporated all these projects into an EPA application that was backed by support letters from 23 organizations (including the DHEC, Chambers of Com- merce, and trucking association). SCSPA secured $2 mil- lion from the EPA and $750,000 in stimulus grants. The total project value was for $5.26 million because of the 48 percent local match from partners. The SCSPA attributes success to extensive outreach and engagement. • Drayage operators—In developing their drayage truck rebate program, the SCSPA undertook a year-long stake- holder process to fully understand the issues, challenges, and perspectives of the trucking community, and worked with the Charleston Motor Carrier Organization on how to structure a program. The SCSPA brought together five partners in an application for grant monies to improve port truck fleet. They were awarded a $1.7 million grant for a drayage truck replacement program, which will result in at least 67 percent reduction in PM10 emissions and 78 percent reduction in NOx from new trucks. As part of their ongoing stakeholder consultation process, SCSPA found that many owner-operators struggle with poor credit wor- thiness and are unable to secure loans at reasonable rates without large down payments. Understanding this prob- lem and recognizing the interdependence of the port and drayage operators, SCSPA did not seek a mandate for 100 percent truck replacement, since they did not want to push operators to finance trucks they could not afford. Rather, the port instituted a voluntary truck replacement program without a truck ban. The SCSPA is increasing the truck credit offered in the next round of grants. With the changes to the program, they hope to meet their goal of 85 percent drayage truck replacement. • Neighboring communities—As part of the development process for the new container terminal, the SCSPA worked with the Low County Alliance for Model Communities to develop a $4 million mitigation plan addressing housing, job training, economic development, and air impact moni- toring, among others. The SCSPA received an environmen- tal justice award from the EPA for this effort in 2010. • Nongovernmental organizations/advocacy organiza- tions—The SCSPA joined the Coalition for Responsible Transportation to help drive change. SCSPA describes the coalition as an important partner because of their power of influence. Unintended Consequences and Challenges Working closely with partners in the development of their programs, and implementing voluntary initiatives only, the port has not encountered unintended consequences. Because their programs are voluntary, parties that deem the programs to be insufficiently beneficial can choose not to participate. However, lack of program funds was cited as a big challenge. South Carolina does not have a dedicated state program for funding air emission projects equivalent to the Texas Emis- sions Reduction Plan (TERP) or similar funding in Califor- nia. The port has to be more resourceful and collaborative in seeking and leveraging public funds. Overall, the SCSPA takes the view that successful emis- sions reductions efforts are those developed in partnership between the public and private sectors, with incentives pro- vided to assist implementation. They advise policymakers to engage in dialog with the private sector to establish priorities and incentives, rather than developing unfunded regulations that may lead companies to avoid compliance and, in the end, may not achieve environmental improvements. Port of Houston—Balancing the Interests of Business, the Environment, and the Community Port Overview The Port of Houston is ranked second in the United States in total tonnage and is the nation’s leading break-bulk port. The Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) region is an ozone nonattainment area. Realizing early on that public agencies did

102 not have a good understanding of Port of Houston Author- ity (PHA) activities and the emissions sources within their control, the PHA took action and engaged an air quality con- sultant. They participated in air emissions discussions to edu- cate public agencies and become engaged in the air emissions policy-making process. PHA developed a Clean Air Strategy Plan (CASP) in 2009, which sets out the ways in which the port will contribute to meeting air quality standards for ozone within the region. The focus of the CASP is to strategize economically feasible ways to implement emission reductions from maritime-related sources in the greater Port of Houston area and to promote air quality awareness. In developing the CASP, the PHA sought to act in the best interests of business, the environment, and the community. CASP Initiatives Through the CASP, the PHA, working with the private sector, introduced a range of voluntary initiatives, including (PHA, 2011): • Use of cleaner fuel—Texas low-emission on-road diesel (sulfur content of 15 parts per million) is used for on-road and off-road fleets. • Diesel equipment replacement—PHA, along with six private partners, is replacing, repowering, and retrofitting over 128 pieces of old diesel equipment, including cargo- handling equipment, on-road trucks, and marine engines, following the award of $3.4 million of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding. • Fuel-switching demonstration—In partnership with EPA, Maersk, and Hamburg Sud, PHA is demonstrating “fuel- switching” to 0.1 percent sulfur marine gas oil for con- tainer ships in the Gulf of Mexico. The project achieved more than a 95 percent reduction in SO2, and 85 percent reduction in PM emissions from participating vessels. This demonstration has led to a longer-term partnership with Maersk Line to conduct fuel-switching in all of its vessels calling at PHA facilities, with the incremental fuel costs covered with a Diesel Emissions Reduction Act grant. • Public/private partnerships—The port is developing partnerships with private-sector entities, with the PHA providing a conduit to federal funding. For example, PHA was awarded over $600,000 in Diesel Emissions Reduction Act grant funds to replace 14 yard crane engines with new, cleaner engines. • SmartWay drayage truck program—PHA committed $50,000 toward the EPA SmartWay Program in the HGB nonattainment area. PHA partnered with Houston Galves- ton area government to leverage the funding for this pro- gram, and secured a $9 million EPA SmartWay drayage truck grant to provide loans to truck owners and opera- tors who will replace more than 200 old trucks with newer, cleaner trucks. • On-dock equipment replacement—Nine new rubber tire gantry cranes with fuel-saving technology and anti-idling devices were purchased. • Technology demonstration—PHA committed funding and support to the demonstration and implementation of advanced powertrain technology ahead of the regulatory requirements for locomotives and harbor vessels. They also committed $20,000 toward an EPA fuel-switching feasibility study. • Environmental leadership group—PHA participated in the C40 World Ports Climate Initiative in Rotterdam, an alliance of the world’s largest cities committed to tackling climate change, resulting in the World Ports Climate Decla- ration. PHA, along with EPA, is encouraging Mexico to join the North American Emissions Control Area in the future. • Environmental management system—PHA has intro- duced an environmental management system. Implementation has strong management support, includes active staff participation with a strong emphasis on educa- tion and outreach, as well as program tracking and reporting, with an annual review and update process. The PHA Envi- ronmental Affairs Department is responsible for monitoring of impacts, data gathering, and reporting. Partnerships and Working Together The CASP was developed as a joint initiative with stakehold- ers including PHA tenants; terminal operators; the trucking community; ocean carriers; harbor craft and stevedoring own- ers and agents; the City of Houston; Harris County; the Metro- politan Planning Organization, the Texas state environmental agency; the EPA; various nongovernmental organizations; and local communities and citizens’ groups. Consultation was undertaken with more than 150 private industries. The CASP is a “fluid” strategy that incorporates ongoing input from stakeholders. For example, PHA established a quarterly truck policy working group to develop and review strate- gic recommendations for PHA and tenant operations. This includes an education/outreach program to drayage truck owners/operators. The PHA also has formed partnerships with port tenants and users, in order to apply for state and federal grant programs. Access to funding is a key driving force behind these partner- ships. PHA continues to serve as the local maritime industry pass-through agency for applications and grant administration. The PHA has taken on a leadership role in air emissions reduction, for example by supporting the Texas Waterways Operator Association’s Memorandum of Understanding for

103 emission reduction in the HGB area; participating in the Regional Air Quality Policy Committee; chairing the Ameri- can Association of Port Authority’s Environmental Commit- tee and the Authority’s Sustainability Task Force (part of the Environmental Committee). Parallel Initiatives EPA mobile source emission standards apply in Texas. TERP provides financial incentives to eligible individuals, businesses, or local governments to reduce emissions from polluting vehicles and equipment. Grants are provided for a range of projects including upgrade or replacement of on-road vehicles, locomotives, marine vessels, idle reduction infrastruc- ture, replacement or repowering of existing diesel or gasoline vehicles with natural gas vehicles or engines, and alternative fueling facilities. TERP has committed almost $20 million to reduce locomo- tive emissions in the Houston Galveston area, which suffers from the most severe locomotive emissions and the highest ozone concentrations in the state. TERP funds projects in nonattainment counties for the purchase of new locomotives; replacement of old engines; retrofit or addition of emission control technologies. New locomotives must emit 25 percent less NOx than the engine replaced or 25 percent less than the federal standard (if new). These projects are expected to reduce NOx emissions by more than 3,300 tons at an average cost of $5,900 per ton (Scott and Sinnamon, 2006). Managing Air Emissions at POLA Port Context The Port of Los Angeles (POLA) is the busiest container port in the United States, typically handling over 7.5 million TEUs per year. The port is located within the South Coast Air Basin, and designated as a nonattainment area for ozone, carbon monoxide, and PM. Port operations collectively con- tribute substantial amounts of NOx emissions (precursors to the formation of ozone) to the regional airshed. Beginning in the 1990s, communities adjacent to the port and lobby groups began voicing concerns over the impacts of port air emissions (particularly in relation to NOx and PM emissions) on human health. Litigation brought by local community and environmental lobby groups stalled the Port’s Capital Improvement Program for 5 years. Clean Air Action Plan The port, in conjunction with stakeholders, forged their own solutions to manage air emissions in the form of the San Pedro Ports Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP). In developing the CAAP, POLA went beyond what the regulators require, and through a partnership with regulatory agencies, their customers, and the community, was able to achieve significant emissions reduc- tions. Building these beneficial relationships has required sig- nificant outreach and the demonstration of a commitment to reducing emissions on the part of the port. Outreach efforts and results have earned the port credibility with regulatory agencies, the community, and nongovernment organizations, allowing POLA to go ahead with its expansion plans. The CAAP made port expansion and growth in cargo volumes pos- sible, with the estimated benefit of creating between 300,000 and 600,000 jobs over 20 years, while reducing air emissions from port-related sources by 45 percent or more (Knatz, 2009). Partnerships with Customers As large multinational corporations with significant capital invested in the San Pedro Bay operations, port tenants had an interest in improving their own environmental performance in exchange for the ability to expand their terminals and opera- tions. The San Pedro Bay Ports were also in the fortunate posi- tion of being able to leverage landlord tenant leases and tariffs to ensure environmental requirements were met. Being at the intersection of freight transportation modes including ship- ping, rail, and road, they were also able to exert influence over different emissions sources. Through these partnerships, the port has been able to extend its reach beyond the port gates, and has arguably achieved wider air emissions reductions more quickly than might have been possible through regula- tion alone. For example, the OffPeak or PierPASS Program, intro- duced in 2005 in collaboration with the marine terminal operators (MTOs) and steamship lines, provides a financial incentive to move cargo outside of the peak daytime traffic hours. A traffic mitigation fee of $40 per TEU is imposed on eligible cargo. Fee revenue (less operating costs) is returned to MTOs to cover the costs of extended hours of operation. The initiative shifted 22 to 30 percent of cargo to the off- peak period, exceeding targets in its first year of operation (Giuliano and O’Brien, 2008). Previous attempts to regulate operating practices (such as the Port Gate Appointment Sys- tem) implemented via Assembly Bill 2650, were less sensi- tive to operational practices and proved difficult to enforce. In contrast, the PierPASS program is perceived positively by MTOs, allows MTOs to control implementation, avoids com- petition, and enables costs to be offset. Shifting cargo move- ments to the offpeak period has enabled growth in container activity to be accommodated (Giuliano and O’Brien, 2008). The PierPASS Program illustrates the capacity of ports and MTOs to respond to increased pressures for resolving conges- tion and environmental problems outside of the traditional regulatory measures.

104 Since 2005, voluntary emission reduction programs have yielded substantial reductions in diesel PM (68 percent) and sulfur oxide emissions (74 percent) at POLA. Neverthe- less, based on current forecasts, further additional emission reductions are needed to meet goals established in CAAP. By 2023, the plan calls for 77 percent diesel PM reductions and 59 percent NOx reductions (http://www.portoflosangeles. org/environment/ogv.asp, POLA, 2013). The port has intro- duced various voluntary and compulsory emissions to curb emissions, as described in the remainder of this section. Environmental Ship Index Program The Environmental Ship Index (developed through the International Association of Ports and Harbors [IAPH] World Ports Climate Initiative [WPCI]) is intended to promote collaboration among ports and shipping lines to reduce air emissions and greenhouse gases. POLA has introduced an incentive program that provides financial rewards to ocean carriers who voluntarily reduce ship PM and NOx emissions beyond regulatory requirements. It is intended to encourage ocean carriers to bring their newest, most efficient vessels to the port. In addition to financial incentives, the rating system enables shipping lines to demonstrate that they have a green vessel and for shippers to claim that their goods are moved by green ships. It is thus an effective marketing tool, ensuring both environmental and economic benefits. Vessel Speed Reduction Program Identified in CAAP, the port’s voluntary vessel speed reduc- tion program is intended to reduce NOx emissions from ocean-going vessels. The port introduced an incentive pro- gram that provides reduced dockage fees to vessels that reduce their speeds within 40 nautical miles of the port. The port regularly publishes data that indicates high rates of com- pliance (http://www.portoflosangeles.org/environment/ogv. asp, POLA, 2013). Clean Truck Program The POLA Clean Truck Program addresses emissions from drayage trucks, which are responsible for as much as 25 per- cent of port-related air pollution (Knatz, 2009). In contrast to programs introduced at the Port of Charleston, for example, this program established a progressive ban on dirty trucks, with noncompliant trucks eligible to pay a Clean Truck Fee of $35/TEU container moved. These fees, collected by the marine container terminals, contribute to grants for clean truck purchases. Early consultation with carriers, cargo own- ers, terminal operators, and manufacturers, was essential to the identification of options that were both technically feasible and economically viable, as well as to ensure that carriers had sufficient time to plan for the transition in advance of imple- mentation. Because the port had to sustain commercial opera- tions, they were obliged to ensure that the trucks specified by the Clean Truck Program were readily available commercially. POLA worked with manufacturers to obtain volume discounts of between 10 and 20 percent for newer, cleaner trucks, as well as providing financial support to carriers. There was value in this arrangement for the drayage opera- tors and manufacturers, too. Once established goals were in place, the initiative gained a momentum of its own, and truck manufacturers played a key role in marketing it. Shippers also got involved. For example, Target purchased trucks on behalf of carriers (on the understanding that they would be paid back later) to ensure the availability of carriers to move their merchandise. In many cases, carriers gained access to cleaner and greener trucks more easily than would otherwise have been possible. In turn, shippers were able to market their sup- ply chain as being green (POLA, May 12, 2012, pers. comm.). The port reports that in its first year, the program reduced the rate of port truck emissions by an estimated 70 percent, and is expected to reduce emissions by more than 80 percent when fully implemented (POLA, 2011). POLA reports no delays in cargo movement with 99 percent compliance (Knatz, 2009). Electric-Powered Container Drayage Trucks Working jointly with the South Coast Air Quality Manage- ment District (SCAQMD), POLA jointly funded a pilot pro- gram using heavy-duty electric-powered container drayage trucks at port terminals between the docks and warehouses within a 10-mile radius. This emissions-free alternative to die- sel engines could save over 35,000 tons of tailpipe CO2 emis- sions, along with 22 tons of PM, and 428 tons of NOx if used as an alternative to the diesel drayage trucks, which make over 2 million trips annually between the port and near-dock rail facilities (Knatz, 2009). Notwithstanding the high capital costs (each truck currently costs about $200,000), the operating cost of electric trucks is just 10 to 20 percent that of diesel drayage trucks. Taking into account time spent idling, it is estimated that electric trucks could save operators about $35,000 per year. POLA has since approved production of 20 electric trucks for use at the port, and 5 more on-road trucks. The port has been able to exercise its authority to ensure wider benefits for the City of Los Angeles by requiring that the manufacturer establish an assembly plant near the port, thereby creating local green jobs (Knatz, 2009). Locomotive Emissions In 2005, Pacific Harbor Line’s (PHL’s) fleet of switchers was of 1950s and 1960s vintage. Assisted by grants from

105 California’s Carl Moyer Fund, PHL has flipped its fleet to become the cleanest switcher fleet in the country. In return for upgrading to state-of-the-art equipment, the port granted PHL a permit to operate as a sole-source provider until the year 2024—thus ensuring the commercial viability of the investment. Successes POLA’s success in reducing port-related air emissions has been achieved through stakeholder contribution to the air emission reduction efforts through their use of cleaner fuels, new technology, and introducing operational changes. Port customers are reaping financial rewards from fuel savings—a co-benefit of air emissions reductions. A core part of the port’s strategy is the stimulation of inno- vation within private industry to assist in the development of air emissions-reduction goals. POLA has introduced Clean Air Action Plan Awards that receive annual nominations from industry stakeholders. In 2012, POLA received 18 nomi- nations that POLA staff believes is evidence that the private sector is competing to be the best, and wants this distinction. POLA seeks to push practices up and down the supply chain. They consider themselves accountable for rail and truck movements—as well as for vessels up to about 100 miles out. As a consequence, they are keenly interested in the scalability of technologies (e.g., electric trucks) introduced at the port and their wider application. The San Pedro Bay Ports are perhaps in a unique position because of the acute air quality issues in the South Coast region, as well as the volume of cargo they handle, which to some extent gives them more leverage than other ports in exerting environmental requirements on tenants, marine carriers, and drayage operators. Thus, measures introduced here may not be directly comparable with other locations or precisely replica- ble. Nevertheless, the success of the San Pedro Bay Ports’ envi- ronmental programs has been based on collaboration between ports and their stakeholders and the sharing of costs, as well as the provision of rewards and incentives for improved envi- ronmental practices. This principle is something from which all ports can learn. Through partnerships, the port has been able to extend its reach beyond that of public-sector regulators, and has achieved air emissions reductions more quickly than would have been possible through regulation alone. State- and Local-Level Plans and Regulations in California Overview Due to its high volume of trade flows, acute air quality issues, and unique position under the Clean Air Act, Califor- nia has led efforts in the regulation of air emissions and the integration of air emissions mitigation into the freight plan- ning process. Other jurisdictions that face less acute air qual- ity issues, have adopted voluntary approaches to managing emissions with less in the way of actual regulation of freight air emissions. Because California is leading the field in the management and regulation of air emissions, some of these initiatives are reviewed in this section to foster understanding of their impacts. Plans and Strategies California Goods Movement Action Plan 2007—The California Goods Movement Action Plan (GMAP) considers infrastructure improvement needs alongside public health, environmental, and community impacts. The statewide mul- timodal perspective presented in the plan enabled the assess- ment of projects as part of a wider goods movement system, allowing comparison between port, rail, and highway projects within a common performance measurement framework. The framework included defined metrics for infrastructure and operational improvements, environmental impact, com- munity impact, workforce development, and public safety and security. This enabled the prioritization of projects ensuring that the most important needs are addressed first, ensuring funding proceeds in an orderly fashion. The GMAP sets out multimodal policies and programs to reduce con- gestion and to address the environmental impacts resulting from the growth of movement of goods in California. It iden- tifies projects to be considered for Proposition 1B funding, including the $2 billion Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (administered by the California Transportation Commis- sion) and $1 billion for emission reduction projects (admin- istered by CARB). Prepared by the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency (which incorporates the California DOT, Caltrans) and the California EPA, GMAP is widely recognized for the cross-agency coordination that underpins it and for its suc- cess in enabling economic development while addressing environmental priorities. The planning process brought together a range of public- and private-sector stakeholders. Access to Proposition 1B funding was itself key in bringing these parties to the table. Regional Transport Strategy 2012—The Southern Cali- fornia Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Trans- port Strategy (RTS) includes a goods movement component that encompasses sustainable freight initiatives including clean freight corridors, congestion relief, rail improve- ments, and capacity expansion. The plan includes an evalu- ation framework, and each strategy is evaluated in terms of impacts on mobility, safety, environment, community, and the economy. Because goods movement and air emissions are inextricably linked in Southern California (which is classified

106 as an extreme nonattainment area), SCAG developed a paral- lel Goods Movement Environmental Strategy that forms part of the RTS. Close working with agencies such as CARB and SCAQMD were critical to developing this strategy. The environmental strategy defines a path for achieving federal air quality standards. In the short term, this encom- passes enhanced deployment of commercially available low- emission technologies and investments in improved system efficiencies. In the long term, the focus is on advancing technologies and the phased implementation of a zero- and near-zero-emission freight system, in order to accommodate economic growth and environmental protection. The RTS identifies a near-term project for the demonstration and ini- tial deployment of zero-emission trucks receiving wayside power. A phased implementation process is identified that involves substantial research; close working with public and private-sector partners; testing and evaluation of technology; feasibility and funding availability; as well as ongoing assess- ment of impacts on emissions objectives, efficiency, safety, and reliability of the goods movement system (SCAG, 2012, pers. comm., May 21). Regulations Truck drayage rule—Heavy-duty diesel drayage trucks have a disproportionate impact on the air quality of commu- nities surrounding major freight-handling facilities such as ports and intermodal yards. CARB has established new emis- sion standards for in-use, heavy-duty diesel-fueled vehicles that transport cargo to and from ports and intermodal rail facilities, banning older trucks and requiring new emission control requirements for drayage trucks. The rule includes requirements for drayage truck owners; it also establishes obligations for motor carriers that contract with drayage truck operators and facilities where the drayage trucks do business. The regulation is projected to enable significant emission reductions in and around affected ports and inter- modal railyards. PM emissions are projected to be reduced by about 2.6 tons per day starting in 2010, and NOx emis- sions are projected to be reduced by 34 tons per day starting in 2014. CARB estimates that approximately 580 premature deaths would be avoided by 2014 in addition to 17,000 fewer cases of asthma-related symptoms (CARB, 2012). Shore power rule—At-berth emissions were a key con- sideration in the San Pedro Bay Ports CAAP. While the port pursued various voluntary initiatives to emissions reduction, CARB began to consider their regulatory options to ensure ambient air quality standards can be attained in the region. (The Port of Long Beach had already begun to introduce the requirement for shore power as part of the renegotiation of terminal lease agreements. However, given the long-term nature of these agreements with tenants, it was recognized that this approach would involve a protracted lead-in time with negotiations being tied to the expiry of leases.) Fol- lowing successive studies and workshops with stakeholders, CARB concluded in 2007 that shore power could provide suf- ficient criteria air pollutant (CAP) emissions reductions to render regulation feasible. The regulation sets emissions reductions targets for at- berth ships and provides the regulated entities with choices of how to achieve emissions reduction. The final regulation includes two compliance options: use of shore power or use of alternative technologies (including after-treatment tech- nologies, the use of non-grid-based shore power, and the use of portable generators for power) to achieve the equivalent reduction. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach were receptive to the regulation, recognizing that it would level the playing field by having the same requirements at all California ports, thereby reducing the risk of diversion (at least within Cali- fornia). Another benefit to the regulatory process in CARB’s view was the process of getting to know stakeholders and the emergence of positive working relationships. CARB had sev- eral meetings with ports, terminal operators, and shipping lines as part of the rulemaking. The ports were viewed as an important partner in this process, providing the data, and reaching out to carriers and terminals. As part of the regula- tory process, a socioeconomic impact assessment was under- taken, which examined the air emissions reductions expected and costs to industry. To mitigate costs to carriers, the rule applies to frequent callers only, with emissions reductions targets phased in over time. The goal was to achieve at least some reductions as soon as possible. Proposition 1B funding was made available for dockside infrastructure (CARB, 2012, pers. comm., May 21). Tractor-trailer regulations—California AB32, Global Warming Solutions Act, is the driver behind tractor-trailer regulations. The regulation aims to increase fuel efficiency through improvements in tractor and trailer aerodynamics using SmartWay-approved technologies and low-rolling- resistance tires. CARB worked cooperatively with the private sector to generate support for the regulation, by setting up stakeholder groups. A working group (composed of private- sector players) proved useful. They identified issues such as those with the low-rolling-resistance tires required: many in the industry buy retreads, whereas only new tires are Smart- Way verified. As a consequence of the working group con- sultation, retread of SmartWay tires has been made possible. Further, non-SmartWay tires can now be retreaded to be SmartWay compliant. This has resulted in the diversion of unusable tires from landfills—an additional benefit. Nevertheless, interviews with industry conducted as part of this research revealed concerns that benefits of investments in trailer skirts required by this regulation cannot be fully

107 realized in California. A large national truckload carrier cited three issues in particular: • Carriers generally use a drop-trailer system, running an average of three trailers per tractor. This rule requires installing skirts on all trailers, yet the benefit only accrues to the one trailer being towed. The carrier’s view is that this investment could yield more beneficial environmental results if applied elsewhere. • In California, the motor vehicle code prohibits a truck from exceeding 55 miles per hour. Fuel efficiency benefits of trailer skirts are only realized at 50 miles per hour, with optimal benefits gain at speeds of 65 miles per hour. At 55 mph, trailer skirts yield little benefit. • The reporting requirements associated with this regulation add to administrative effort and costs. Concerns about the burdens these measures have on inter- state commerce have been voiced, particularly as this regula- tion presents cost and administrative burdens to interstate fleets that often do not know in advance which equipment will be used in a particular region on a given day. They may be required to shift loads to differently designed vehicles when traveling between states. Concerns also were expressed that trailer skirts could present safety risks as they are easily dam- aged (while crossing railroad tracks and driveways, and dur- ing loading and unloading). Drivers face a liability risk of damaged devices detaching from the trailer while driving. Moreover, some in the industry claim that the operation of aerodynamic side skirts under treacherous weather condi- tions could compromise the devices’ safety and result in fail- ure at high speeds (Tata, 2010). However, CARB staff reports that attitudes have changed because of the realization of savings. (CARB estimates the cost of trailer skirts, for example, is less than $1,200, while devices with the skirts are getting twice the benefits in one year.) Despite initial concerns, there is no evidence of safety issues. In fact, in rainy conditions, trailer skirts are report- edly safer as they result in less spray on the side of trailers. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that accidents have been prevented; for example, in cases where cars have swerved and bounced off skirts. It is noted that trailer skirts also provide more stability at high speeds and under windy conditions (CARB, 2012, pers. comm., May 21). Memoranda of understanding with the railroads— CARB has powers to regulate fuel use and use of old locomotives, but cannot develop in-use standards or new standards for locomotives. CARB has used this influence to ensure that the railroads do more to curb emissions in Cali- fornia than they are required to do nationally. For example, under the Federal Clean Air Act, CARB may require retire- ment of the oldest locomotives in California. Although this will not have a significant impact of air emissions in Cali- fornia, there is a risk for the railroads that if California were to introduce this requirement, other states such as Omaha, Illinois, and Texas could follow suit, with cost implications for rail business. CARB has entered into binding legal agree- ments with the Class 1 railroads (e.g., in 1998, 2005) and is currently into the third round of agreements with the four railroads whose emissions pose the highest health risks in California. Ongoing dialog and engagement is enabling a relationship of mutual trust and respect to be established. CARB believes the railroads view them as pragmatic, and they are often called upon as a broker between the railroads and other agencies that may be less sensitive to railroad technology and operational issues. Data sharing (in respect of technology, operating characteristics, and inventory) has been a by-product of their relationship with the railroads. CARB reports that the railroads’ levels of compliance with the memoranda of understanding are good (CARB, 2012, pers. comm., May 21). South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)—Technology Advancement Office—The Tech- nology Advancement Office is required as part of the imple- mentation of state law because of the particular air quality challenges in Southern California. The office engages private industry, academic and research institutions, technology devel- opers, and government agencies in cooperative partnerships to cosponsor projects intended to demonstrate the successful use of clean fuels and technologies that lower or eliminate air emis- sions. It also promotes the use of commercially available, low- emission mobile and stationary technologies. The office is funded in part by grants from the federal government. However, public-private partnerships have enabled SCAQMD to leverage its public funds, with an aver- age $3 of outside investment for every public dollar contrib- uted. Many of the advanced technologies funded though these public-private partnerships are now being commer- cialized in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAQMD, 2009). SCAQMD offers incentive programs designed to promote voluntary take-up of new technologies on an accelerated schedule. This also provides manufacturers with justification to gear up for large-scale production of cleaner technologies (SCAQMD, 2012). SCAQMD emphasizes technologies that use various non- conventional energy sources (fuel cell, natural gas, and electric/ hybrid electric). Recognizing that there is no one fuel or tech- nology that is appropriate to all uses, the SCAQMD is fuel- or technology-neutral. SCAQMD has submitted an application for a $19.2 million federal grant to co-fund a demonstra- tion project for zero-emission container transport between the San Pedro ports and the Intermodal Container Transfer Facility, both 5 miles apart. This countywide Zero Emission Truck initiative is intended to catalyze the development and

108 deployment of zero-emission trucks in Los Angeles County. It is being developed in conjunction with the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, Caltrans, SCAG, Gateway Cities Council of Governments, and LA Metro and is being under- taken with the cooperation of Siemens (technology provider) (SCAQMD, May 2012, pers. comm.). Conclusions Unique Role of Ports Ports are in a unique position as public agencies that have both a clear understanding of supply-chain economics and operations at the same time as being attuned to environmen- tal issues. Surrounded by local communities, they are obliged to take steps to mitigate the impacts of their operations on public health. As businesses, they are acutely aware of the need to mitigate risks and sustain port traffic. More so than other public or private-sector agencies, they generally have the capacity and resources to undertake market, environmen- tal, and technical analysis relating to emissions reductions. Being at the intersection of freight transportation modes, including shipping, rail, and road, they also are able to exert influence over various different emissions sources. Ports are continually required to balance environmental, economic, and social considerations and are regularly at the forefront of the interface between different stakeholder groups (private business, regulatory agencies, and communi- ties). Although they are not regulatory agencies, they do exer- cise some power (through port leases and tariffs, operating permits, and their ability to provide access to public funding for emissions reductions efforts). They are well positioned to enter into partnerships with various stakeholders, including local communities, carriers, private-sector clients, as well as planning and regulatory authorities. Through such partner- ships, ports have been able to achieve air emissions reduc- tions more quickly than is possible through regulation alone. They are also able to extend their reach beyond the port gates (for example, through influencing drayage truck emis- sions). Through their buying power they are able to influence the local economy. For example, POLA was able to secure dis- counts from manufacturers from clean drayage truck pur- chases and require electric truck manufacturers to establish an assembly plant near the port. Partnerships and Working Together The experiences of the three ports in this case study clus- ter highlight the importance of cooperation between public agencies as well as stakeholder engagement and partnerships with the private sector in securing air emissions reductions. The experience of POLA provides a stark reminder of the risks of ports not working with local communities and stake- holders. The case studies indicate that working together in the pursuit of shared outcomes has enabled significant air emis- sions reductions, often ahead of regulatory requirements. In the cases of all three ports, partnerships have been aided through access to funding and financial incentives that have driven implementation of air emissions-reduction efforts. For example, the Offpeak Program provides a financial incentive for moving cargo outside of peak daytime traf- fic hours. As large multinational corporations that have significant capital invested in port operations, port ten- ants are interested in improving their own environmen- tal performance in exchange for the ability to expand their terminals and operations (e.g., at the Port of Charleston and POLA). The POLA Vessel Speed Reduction Program includes lower dockage fees to vessels that reduce their speeds when approaching or leaving the port, and it indicates high levels of compliance. Marine carriers have a similar interest in proving their sustainability credentials. The lower dockage fees pro- vide an added incentive. Recognition of the private sector’s initiatives is also a factor in the success of port initiatives, for example, the POLA Envi- ronmental Ship Index can also be used by shippers and ocean carriers as their own promotional instrument. Similarly, the POLA Clean Air Action Plan Awards provide industry recog- nition and reward for outstanding effort in environmental performance and have received active participation from the private sector. Interestingly, in the case of the Port of Charleston and the POLA, the community was a key catalyst in the ports’ clean air initiatives. In both instances, it has been necessary to get the community to commit to air emissions reductions in order for the ports to realize their expansion ambitions. California Context Because of the economic position of POLA, the particular air quality issues in California, and the unique powers afforded to the state under the Clean Air Act, both the port and CARB have taken significant steps in the management and regulation of air emissions from freight-related sources. The port and the State of California are faced with an urgent requirement to reduce emissions to meet National Ambient Air Quality Stan- dards, as well as to address community concerns. Nevertheless, stakeholder engagement and access to public funding have also been key in shaping plans, strategies, and regulation to achieve emissions reductions in the California context. For example, access to Proposition 1B funding is, in part, what brought stakeholders to the table in developing the Goods Movement Action Plan. Stakeholder involvement and financial incentives and have been important in the shaping of port initiatives in the context of POLA (e.g., with the Clean

109 Truck Program and locomotive emissions reductions) and in enabling compliance with California regulations. Changes in Port Operational Practices The POLA Offpeak Program and the initiatives at Port of Charleston provide good examples of how proactive engage- ment of the private sector can result in modifications to port practices with emissions-reduction benefits. By incorporat- ing operational efficiencies and reducing turn times, the amount of time vessels spend at berth has been minimized at the Port of Charleston, thereby reducing at-berth emissions from vessels. The shore power regulations introduced in California require technology-based solutions to the reduction of at-berth vessel emissions (although the legislation allows some flexibility in the technology to be employed). The regulation-based approach in the Californian context needs to be understood in terms of the seriousness and urgency of the air quality issues in that state, and the fact that other options in respect of improved port practices have already been largely exhausted.

Next: Appendix D - Inland Perspectives »
Sustainability Strategies Addressing Supply-Chain Air Emissions Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Freight Research Program (NCFRP) Report 28: Sustainability Strategies Addressing Supply-Chain Air Emissions identifies potential strategies for accelerating environmental improvement, enhancing performance, and promoting social responsibility of supply chains.

The report is intended to help improve decision makers’ understanding of the impact of environmental policies and regulations on the supply chain, focusing on the interrelationships between economic drivers, air quality, and greenhouse gas policy and regulations.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!