Silly Question
By T.L. Garrett
June 2, 2010
You have to love simple loaded questions, especially when the obvious answer is not the one expected. Recently, Dr. Barry Wallerstein, Executive Officer for the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), was quoted in L.A. Times as asking "So either we create a backstop rule, or the federal government adopts regulations for us. Which one do the ports prefer?"
While I can’t speak for the Ports, I can respond for the maritime industry that uses the ports with a definitive “We prefer uniform federal regulations that apply equally to all Ports in the United States, regulations that will not create a competitive disadvantage for the SanPedroBay ports and drive trade away from this region.”
To read the entire blog, click here.
Fee Free?
By John McLaurin
April 27, 2010
Competition between ports has never been more intense. It is evident in an effective ad placed by the Port of Seattle which states “Fee Free. Now.” But is it? Pilot fees in Puget Sound may go up soon -- again. The Puget Sound Pilots bring in $30 million a year for 50+ members who currently average 141 jobs each per year. This state licensed monopoly is seeking a 10% rate increase – another $3 million dollars a year to ocean carriers calling Puget Sound ports. During the “Great Recession”, while vessel traffic and pilot workload decreased in 2009, pilotage costs for ocean carriers increased three percent. Since July 1, 2005, the cumulative pilot tariff increases totaled 42%. Fee free? Not exactly.
Legislature: Heal Thyself
By John McLaurin
April 21, 2010
With an approval rating of nine percent, the California Legislature is more unpopular than Richard Nixon during the depths of the Watergate scandal. Yet there is no scandal in Sacramento prompting such low numbers – rather it is a function of an ongoing political malaise that has settled upon the Capitol.
The institution’s dysfunction is well documented and acknowledged by all – including by the members of the Legislature itself. Frustration is found throughout the Capitol – yet this frustration is outweighed by the ongoing failure to implement any type of minor, but important, committee process changes that potentially could make both Legislative houses more deliberative, encourage more debate, and increase the focus on addressing some of the fundamental problems facing the state.
Click here to read the entire blog.
Where Old Trucks Go to Die
By John Berge
March 25, 2010
Q: Where do you find the cleanest trucks in California?
A: The ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland
No, it’s not a trick question, although it’s turned into a bad joke played on the people of California.
Of all the sources of emissions at ports, diesel trucks have garnered the most attention from the local community. This is not surprising since they are the visible source driving down the streets and through the neighborhoods. On top of that, port drayage trucks gained the reputation years ago of being the red headed stepchild of the trucking industry. Despite data showing an average difference in age between a port truck and other trucks in the LA region of only 5 months, port trucks were described as aged and decrepit compared to other on-road trucks and the ports were caricatured as graveyards “where old trucks went to die.”
Click here to read the entire blog.
Greater Environmental Risk: Tennis Shoes or Crude Oil?
By Capt. Michael Moore
February 12, 2010
It’s good to see that the news media is shining some light on the issue of paying for a standby tug at NeahBay. (See Kitsap Sun coverage below).
The tug’s purpose is to prevent a catastrophic oil spill that could result from a disabled ship grounding along the WashingtonCoast or in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Under state law, companies that operate large vessels in the strait have to share in the costs of paying for a stand-by tug to help prevent an oil spill by a drift grounding.
That’s fine. The fairest way to allocate tug costs would seem to be on the basis of how much oil is carried on ships navigating the strait. Vessel operators should pay on the basis of how much oil is moved through the strait on their ships. It’s oil that poses a risk, not tennis shoes (or other consumer goods). Cargo ships carry about 20% of the oil (as fuel), tankers about 80% of the oil (as cargo and fuel). It seems that a fair share is pretty straight forward.
Click here to read the entire blog.
Port of Deadwood
By John R. McLaurin
February 8, 2010
The Port of Los Angeles is not only swimming against the tide with regard to depressed cargo volumes and port revenues, it is also about to be penalized by the City of Los Angeles for its inability to balance its budget.
The Port dutifully followed the Mayor’s “Shared Sacrifice” initiative by leaving multiple staff positions unfilled and encouraging early retirement by dozens of employees – all in an effort to reduce costs. In return, the Port is about to become the dumping ground for dozens upon dozens of city employees, adding millions of unanticipated costs because of the LA City Council’s unwillingness to cut back 1,500 positions as part of an effort to reduce the City’s half a billion dollar budget deficit.
Click here to read the entire blog.
Testing, The Right Thing to Do
By T.L. Garrett
February 2, 2010
Everyone wants cleaner air, but sometimes we suspend our common sense in our quest to obtain it. A case in point is the preference currently given to natural gas drayage trucks. On the surface it appears this is a natural solution of replacing the petroleum based fuels. And we’ve all grown up with the mantra of “clean burning natural gas” - to the point where we fail to question the premise. But maybe we should.
If you take the time to look at the most recent certification data of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the first thing you notice is that there is only one natural gas engine available in the heavy duty category, and while that engine does have lower oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions it has higher emissions of particulates, non-methane hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide when compared with the same diesel engine by the same manufacturer. While this is contrary to the accepted notion that natural gas is cleaner than diesel, it is not inconsistent with the limited test data over the years. The most recent head-to-head comparison of diesel technology to natural gas was done back in 2005 for terminal yard tractors. The basic question addressed was: does natural gas run cleaner when compared to diesel using a test cycle that is indicative of how the equipment actually operates? Using certification values as the metric, the results showed that diesel engines preformed as expected but the natural gas engines emitted twice the NOx emissions (3.8 g/hp-hr) as their certification value (1.8 g/hp-hr) and significantly more than the diesel tractor (2.4 g/hp-hr). Since that time both the natural gas and diesel engines have continued to improve but no additional testing has been done.
Click here to read the entire blog.
By John R. McLaurin
January 8, 2010
A wise man once said, “Desperation has no conscience.”
That quote came to mind when reviewing the lawsuit filed late last month by the Natural Resources Defense Council against the Port of Long Beach.
There are several noticeable omissions in the latest NRDC lawsuit: 1) no reference to the Ninth Circuit Court decision invalidating the non-environmental components of the Ports of LA/LB Clean Truck Plan concession agreement — even though the NRDC was an intervening defendant in the lawsuit; 2) acknowledgment that the Federal District Court approved and retained jurisdiction over the settlement agreement between the American Trucking Associations (ATA) and the Port of Long Beach; 3) the fact that the Ports have achieved an estimated 80 percent reduction of truck emissions two years ahead of schedule; and 4) the concurrent implementation of an equivalent statewide regulatory port truck emissions program.
I cannot be sure what the ultimate outcome of the NRDC lawsuit will be, but if the NRDC loses in state court as they have in federal court, perhaps they can try to sue the Port of Long Beach in small claims court.
Truckin': What A Long Strange Trip It's Been
By John R. McLaurin
October 21, 2009
The settlement agreement reached between the Port of Long Beach and the American Trucking Associations resolving a successful legal challenge by the ATA is the latest evolutionary step of a program that started in a far different place.
Back in April 2007, the proposed clean-trucks plan was advertised by the plan’s proponents as a mechanism to rid the ports of dirty trucks, to clean up the air and to enhance security. The trade community was informed by port representatives that the clean-trucks plan had been reviewed by the “nation’s finest legal minds” and that the plan was “bulletproof” from a litigation standpoint.
As the months progressed and various groups started to question the legality of certain elements of the clean-trucks plan, proponents engaged in a well-funded and -orchestrated public relations campaign, vigorously attacking anyone who debated, questioned or opposed the plan.
Click here to read the entire blog.
Dangerous Liasons
By John R. McLaurin
October 13, 2009
During this economic crisis, while port tenants are fighting for survival and the City of Los Angeles is furloughing workers, the Port of Los Angeles continues to operate in a world of its own — a bizarre world where down is up and up is down.
This Thursday, the Port Commission scheduled a vote on Agenda Item 14, funding the creation of a new position — a “liaison” — that would, according to the agenda “(i) bolster and foster communications between the Harbor Department and CD [Council District] 15; (ii) develop and strengthen its business relationship; and (iii) provide up-to-date information to and from CD 15 on various and complex Harbor Department related matters. The term is … one year plus two one-year renewal options, for a total term of up to three years. The maximum compensation is $100,000 per year for a total aggregate compensation amount not-to exceed $300,000.”
My guess is that this new “position” is one that is less functional and practical than it is political — think of it as a personal concierge. It is a position that is solely dedicated to provide “information” to one member of the Los Angeles City Council. Talk about efficiency.
To read the entire blog, click here.
|
