By the Numbers
By Thomas Jelenić, Vice President, Pacific Merchant Shipping Association
The ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles recently adopted a Clean Truck Rate as part of their commitment to transition the port drayage fleet to zero emissions, with a goal of completing the transition by 2035. Despite some dissent, the two ports set the Clean Truck Rate at $10/TEU (or $20 for a forty-foot container); generating $90 million per year, while kicking the can down the road on providing certainty to exemptions for ultra-low-emission trucks intended to bridge the gap on the path to zero emissions. Unsurprisingly, there was a great deal of fuss about this (including by me), not least because the ports are already served by the cleanest drayage fleet in the nation and the steep price tag to eliminate that fleet.
Several commentators discussed the size of port emissions as “the single largest source of emissions in the region.” This is nonsense. No other category is measured the same way. What folks refer to as the “ports” are a collection of independently operated freight facilities in San Pedro, Wilmington, and Long Beach. Their connection is that they fall under the jurisdiction of agencies (i.e., Port of Long Beach and Port of Los Angeles), even though those agencies are not air quality regulators and do not own or operate any equipment. By that measure, South Coast Air Quality Management District is the region’s single largest polluter based on the number of sources under their area of jurisdiction.
Also nonsensical is how “port pollutants” are measured. One would intuitively understand that to be emissions that occur within the two ports jurisdiction – but you would be wrong. A truck at a warehouse in Perris, a train in Ontario, or a ship off the coast of Malibu are all port emissions. No other “source” is measured in this way. No industrial district, multiple refinery complex, the freeway system, or other collection of independent operations are aggregated in a similar manner. So, to call the ports “the single largest source of emissions in the region” results from being in a universe by itself.
Other folks criticized the ports for failing to be bold, or worse, derelict in their duties – despite the fact that the ports are more aggressive than the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on the turnover of trucks (CARB hopes to convert the State’s truck fleet to zero emissions by 2045 – ten years after the ports’ goal), and the ports are dedicating more money to replace the truck fleet (again) than any other stakeholder.
But back to the Clean Truck Rate. Ignoring that the ports are measured by a yardstick used nowhere else, the aggregate emissions from “port-related” trucks must obviously be large enough to make a difference to regional emissions to generate all the excitement we see. Generally, the two pollutants we are most concerned about are diesel particulate matter (DPM) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). DPM is considered a toxic air contaminant, with much focus on its acute impacts. The original Clean Trucks Program did an amazing job in reducing DPM from trucks by 96% - an unqualified success. NOx has been a more challenging pollutant, but truck NOx emissions are down about 77%. As a result, and with federal attainment deadlines looming in 2023, there has been a great deal of focus on reducing NOx emissions more quickly. So, how much do port trucks, measured from Southgate to Perris and beyond, contribute to regional inventories? Collectively, port-related trucking contributes 1.8% of all NOx emissions in the region and 0.7% of all DPM emissions (see the graphs above). You can find these numbers on both ports’ websites as part of their annual emissions inventory efforts, a process that includes review from the South Coast Air Quality Management District, California Air Resources Board, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Despite the trivial difference that the updated Clean Trucks Program will make to regional and local air quality, the ports should be acknowledged and praised for the challenging balancing act they have had to perform. Unfortunately, what they will receive instead is blame and ridicule, even from agencies that have not moved as aggressively and are years behind them, while competing ports claim to follow suit, but in name only.