BILL ANALYSIS
SB 632
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 22, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Mike Eng, Chair
SB 632 (Lowenthal) - As Amended: April 30, 2009
SENATE VOTE : 30-4
SUBJECT : Port Air Quality and Infrastructure Plans
SUMMARY : This bill requires the ports of Los Angeles, Long
Beach, and Oakland, by July 1, 2010, to assess their
infrastructure and air quality improvement needs. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Makes various findings and declarations relative to the need
of infrastructure improvements and air quality reduction
measures for the state's major ports.
2)Requires the ports of Long Beach, Los Angeles (San Pedro
Ports), and the port of Oakland (Oakland) to assess
infrastructure and air quality improvement needs beginning
January 1, 2010.
3)Requires the San Pedro ports to consult with the Southern
California Association of Governments, and Oakland to consult
with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, on
infrastructure projects that improve cargo movement efficiency
and reduce congestion impacts associated with cargo movement.
The ports must identify the project, funding sources or
possible funding sources, and estimated project timeliness for
completion.
4)Requires the San Pedro ports to consult with the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (South Coast), and Oakland to
consult with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD), on air quality projects that reduce pollution
associated with cargo movement, including projects that reduce
pollution from trucks, cargo handling equipment, locomotives,
and ships. The ports must identify the project, funding
sources or possible funding sources, and estimated project
timelines for completion.
5)Requires the ports to provide the assessments to the
Legislature by July 1, 2010, including assessments of
SB 632
Page 2
infrastructure and air quality improvement costs, funding
sources, and possible funding options for projects without a
funding source.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes 11 ports in the state: Humboldt Bay, Hueneme,
Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Redwood City, Richmond,
Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, and Stockton. The law
allows each port to lay out, plan, and establish a general
plan and port system improvements and prescribe the
specifications for such improvements.
2)Requires, pursuant to the California Coastal Act, that each
port governing body prepare and adopt a port master plan that
includes:
a) Proposed uses of land and water areas;
b) Projected design and location of port land areas, water
areas, berthing, and navigation ways and systems intended
to serve commercial traffic within the area of jurisdiction
of the port governing body;
c) An estimate of the effect of development on habitat
areas and the marine environment, a review of existing
water quality, habitat areas, and quantitative and
qualitative biological inventories and proposals to
minimize and mitigate any substantial adverse impact; and,
d) Adequate public hearing and public participation in port
planning and development decisions.
3)Establishes the California Marine and Intermodal
Transportation System Advisory Council (CALMITSAC) and
requests it to study and compile information on the impacts of
port growth on the state's transportation system and report
its findings to the Legislature with recommendations on
methods to better manage port growth and address the
environmental impacts of moving goods through the ports.
Establishes it as a regional subunit of the Marine
Transportation System National Advisory Council chartered by
the federal Secretary of Transportation under the Federal
Advisory Council Act.
SB 632
Page 3
4)Authorizes the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to
coordinate statewide efforts to attain and maintain ambient
air quality standards and specifies its powers. Establishes
South Coast and BAAQMD as the regional air quality management
districts in their respective areas of the state.
5)Authorizes, through the enactment of Proposition 1B, the
Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port
Security Bond Act of 2006, as approved by the statewide voters
in November 2006, the state to sell approximately $20 billion
of general obligation bonds to fund transportation projects to
relieve congestion, improve the movement of goods, improve air
quality, and enhance the safety and security of the
transportation system. Of the $20 billion, allocates $1
billion to ARB for emission reductions, not otherwise required
by law or regulation, from activities related to the movement
of freight along California's trade corridors (commencing at
the state's airports, seaports and land ports of entry).
Provides funds for the replacement, repower, or retrofit of
heavy-duty trucks, locomotives, commercial harbor craft,
ocean-going vessels related to freight, and cargo-handling
equipment with cleaner technology alternatives. Port environs
qualify as one of four targeted freight corridors for
expenditure of the $1 billion.
6)Establishes through the enactment of Proposition 1B (see above
#5), the Trade Corridor Improvement Program, that includes $2
billion, for allocation by the California Transportation
Commission (CTC) for infrastructure improvements along
federally designated "Trade Corridors of National
Significance" in this state or along other corridors within
this state that have a high volume of freight movement. The
CTC is to consult the Trade Infrastructure and Goods Movement
Plan, trade infrastructure and goods movement plans adopted by
regional transportation planning agencies, regional
transportation plans, and Cal-MITSAC Statewide Port Master
Plan.
FISCAL EFFECT : Accordingly to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS : Ports are local government agencies governed by port
commissions that are responsible for developing, maintaining,
SB 632
Page 4
and overseeing the operation of shore side facilities for the
intermodal transfer of cargo between ships, trucks, and
railroads. In some cases, certain ports have jurisdiction over
affiliated airports, build and maintain terminals for the
passenger cruise ship industry, or manage marinas and other
public facilities. Many industrial, manufacturing, and other
businesses locate their facilities near ports to take advantage
of the low-cost inbound transportation of raw materials and
cost-efficient outbound shipments of products for both domestic
and foreign markets.
As public entities, and due to their geographical location,
ports are regulated by several state and local government
agencies, including the Business, Transportation and Housing
Agency, State Resources Agency, Bay Conservation and Development
Commission, State Air Resources Board, BAAQMD, and South Coast,
among others.
California's 11 public ports, located along the coast from San
Diego to Humboldt and inland along the Sacramento and San
Joaquin Rivers, are the global gateways for goods movement.
Governed by "port commissions," these local government bodies
develop, maintain, and oversee the operation of shore side
facilities for the intermodal transfer of cargo between ships,
trucks, and railroads. A significant number of jobs in the
state are tied to trade, and the value of international trade
alone exceeds $350 billion. Ports are seen as integral to
keeping California the sixth largest economy in the world.
According to a 2006 report by ARB, pollution from our state's
ports causes 2,400 premature deaths annually. ARB recently
estimated that over the next 15 years, polluting activity from
operations at California's ports will have an aggregate health
impact equivalent to approximately $200 billion in present value
dollars.
As a disproportionate number of communities impacted by port
pollution are low-income communities of color, the state
currently shoulders much of these port-caused health costs. By
2020, ports and freight transport operations will be the largest
source of particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxide (NOx)
emissions in the state, producing more diesel PM than all
passenger vehicles, off-road equipment and stationary sources
combined. On a related note, Southern California risks losing
$12.1 billion in federal highway funds if federal Clean Air Act
SB 632
Page 5
standards are not met. So far, the basin has failed to meet
national standards for ozone or for particulate emissions.
Relative to goods movement infrastructure development needs,
according to the Los Angeles Economic Development Corp.,
Southern California must spend at least $10.5 billion to improve
railroads, rail yards and highways to keep up with surging
international trade or risk losing more than 500,000 new jobs
and more than $1 billion of taxes a year. Inefficiencies in the
freight transport system are costly to the state. Improving our
rail system will reduce the number of diesel trucks on our
freeways and alleviate congestion. For example, "on-dock rail"
is a less polluting and more efficient alternative to trucking
goods on our freeways. Congestion costs Southern California
more than $10 billion in 2003.
According to the author's office, "there have been several plans
either for goods movement infrastructure or for reducing goods
movement emissions, however those plans are several years old
and most do not identify where funds will come from to build
goods movement infrastructure or to reduce emissions from goods
movement in California. The ARB Emission Reduction Plan
estimates the cost to reduce goods movement emissions between $6
billion and $10 billion. Additionally the Governor's Goods
Movement Action Plan estimates goods movement infrastructure
costs to exceed $20 billion over the next decade" This bill
seeks to find out how the San Pedro ports and the Port of
Oakland will fund their improvements along with providing
estimated timelines for implementation of the action measures.
San Pedro Ports Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) : Adopted by the
San Pedro Ports, the CAAP addresses every category of
port-related emission sources - ships, trucks, trains,
cargo-handling equipment and harbor craft - and outlines
specific, detailed strategies to reduce emissions from each
category. The measures that will be implemented under the CAAP
are expected to eliminate more than 47 % of diesel PM emissions
from port-related sources within the next five years and
significantly reduce associated health risks. Smog-forming
nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions will be reduced by more than 45
%. Measures outlined in the CAAP will also result in the
reduction of sulfur oxides (SOx) by 52 %. It is expected that
in five years, under the CAAP, diesel PM from all port-related
sources would be reduced by a total of 1,200 tons per year; NOx
emissions would be reduced by 12,000 tons per year; and SOx
SB 632
Page 6
emissions would be reduced by 8,900 tons a year. It is
estimated that the total cost to implement CAAP is over $2
billion.
Port of Oakland's Maritime Air Quality Improvement Program
(MAQIP) : According to Oakland, the MAQIP was developed in
collaboration with a task force of diverse stakeholders, to
reduce criteria pollutants, notably diesel particulate matter,
associated with maritime (seaport) activities at the port. The
MAQIP, recently adopted on April 7, 2009, is the Oakland's
master plan to reduce air pollution from both mobile and
stationary on/near-shore and off-shore sources at the seaport.
The MAQIP not only supports current and future state and local
emission reduction requirements, but enhances these requirements
through early implementation goals and by targeting emission
reductions that exceed legally mandated requirements. Further,
it builds upon the Port Maritime Air Quality Policy Statement
("Port Air Quality Statement"), adopted by the Board of Port
Commissioners in March 2008. The Port Air Quality Statement
sets a goal of reducing the community cancer health risk related
to exposure to diesel particulate matter (PM) emissions
associated with the port's maritime operations by 85% from 2005
to 2020, through all practicable and feasible means. It also
commits the port to implement early action emissions reduction
measures to reduce the duration of the public's exposure to
emissions that may cause health risks, through all practicable
and feasible means. The MAQIP relies on the 2005 seaport air
emissions inventory (completed in 2007, and revised in 2008) and
2008 human health risk assessment studies prepared by the
Oakland and ARB, respectively, to establish baseline emissions
and to set emission reduction goals. Recently, on June 16,
2009, Oakland voted to restrict truck models older than 1994, as
well as models from 1994 to 2006 not equipped with soot filters,
at their port. According to news reports, the new ban on trucks
that burn dirty diesel fuel is expected to help clean the air
around the Port of Oakland. Although ARB has already ruled that
dirty trucks will be illegal at Oakland starting next year,
Oakland is responsible for enforcing the ruling on the estimated
2,000 trucks that pass through daily.
CALMITSAC : As required by state statute, CALMITSAC was required
to prepare and transmit a report to the Legislature by January
1, 2006 on several issues including, among other items, the
projected growth of each maritime port in the state; the costs
and benefits of developing a coordinated state program to obtain
SB 632
Page 7
federal funding for maritime port growth, security, and
congestion relief; impacts of maritime port growth on the
state's transportation system; and air pollution caused by
movement of goods through the state's maritime ports, and
proposed methods of mitigating or alleviating that pollution.
Arguments in Support of the Bill :
1)The author asserts that "there have been several plans either
for goods movement infrastructure or for reducing goods
movement emissions, however, those plans are several years old
and most do not identify where funds will come from to build
goods movement infrastructure or to reduce emissions from
goods movement in California."
2)According to Breathe California, writing in support of this
bill, "the current air quality improvement plans at the ports
do not provide assurances of timely implementation. SB 632
will move forward the goal of protecting public health by
requiring the ports to identify project funding needs and an
implementation timeline."
3)The BAAQMD, also writing in support of the bill, indicates
that they "strongly believe that the Port of Oakland must do
more to cut emissions and become a more responsible neighbor.
In comparison to the robust emissions reduction programs in
place in Long Beach and Los Angeles, Oakland is lagging far
behind. We believe SB 632 will help the Port of Oakland move
forward with a better planning process."
4)If this information is critical to state decisionmakers,
should this bill be revised to require the port entities to
update and submit the information on a biennial basis?
Arguments in Opposition of the Bill :
1)Some could argue that the ports are generally governed by
their respective local governmental entities and, accordingly,
state oversight and intervention is not necessary and usurps
local control and decisionmaking.
2)The clean air plans adopted by the ports are not static
documents but are rather "living" plans and subject to
constant change. This is evident with the recent adoption of
the dirty trucks restriction as imposed by Oakland.
SB 632
Page 8
3)The Proposition 1B trade corridor improvement program and
goods movement emission reduction programs have identified
needs beyond available funding. Furthermore, according to
the author's office, "the Governor's Goods Movement Action
Plan estimates goods movement infrastructure costs to exceed
$20 billion over the next decade." Should these costs be
shouldered by the state or by the three ports as specified in
this bill, especially when one considers that some of the
infrastructure improvements are located beyond the ports'
jurisdictional areas?
Related bills : SB 974 (Lowenthal) of 2008, would have
authorized a fee of up to $30 on each shipping container
processed at the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland,
to fund congestion relief and air pollution mitigation projects
related to the ports. That bill was vetoed by the Governor who
indicated that Proposition 1B provides funds for port related
air quality emission reductions as well as the bill's potential
impact upon the economy.
SB 764 (Lowenthal) of 2006, would have required the San Pedro
Ports to establish air quality emission baseline levels. That
bill died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Breathe California
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Ed Imai / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093