BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 937
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 9, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair
AB 937 (Mendoza) - As Amended: January 11, 2012
SUBJECT : Oceangoing vessels: emission controls
SUMMARY : Authorizes a vessel at berth or at anchor in the
jurisdiction of a California port to use any method to reduce
emissions that has been satisfactorily demonstrated to the
California Air Resources Board (ARB) to reduce emissions to the
level that would be achieved by using shore power.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes ARB, in partnership with local air districts, to
oversee all air pollution control efforts to attain and
maintain health-based air quality standards in California.
2)Enacts the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and
Port Security Bond Act of 2006 (bond act), approved by the
voters as Proposition 1B on November 7, 2006, that includes a
$1 billion Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program (Program)
administered in partnership between ARB and local agencies
(air districts and ports) to quickly reduce air pollution
emissions and health risk from freight movement along
California's trade corridors. Local agencies apply to ARB for
funding and offer financial incentives to owners of equipment
used in freight movement to upgrade to cleaner technologies.
Projects funded under the Program must achieve early or extra
emission reductions not otherwise required by law or
regulation.
3)Establishes, through ARB regulation, measures to reduce
emissions of diesel particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides,
and sulfur oxides from the use of auxiliary diesel engines and
diesel-electric engines on ocean-going vessels within any of
the waters subject to California regulation.
4)Regulates the oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and diesel PM emissions
from the operation of auxiliary engines on container vessels,
passenger vessels, and refrigerated cargo vessels while these
vessels are docked at berth at a California port. Serves to
reduce emissions by limiting the time during which auxiliary
AB 937
Page 2
diesel engines are in operation while docked.
5)Defines, through regulation, "Emission Control Strategy" to
mean any device, system, or strategy employed to reduce
emissions from a diesel engine, including, but not limited to,
utilization of shore-side electrical power, diesel oxidation
catalysts, selective catalytic reduction systems, diesel
particulate filters, alternative diesel fuels, water
emulsified fuels, lower sulfur fuels, and any combination of
the above.
6)Authorizes, through regulation, various types of emission
controls to reduce at-berth emissions, including:
a) Grid-based shore power;
b) Non-grid-based shore power (such as natural
gas-fueled engines);
c) Emission controls installed on the ships (e.g.,
particulate control traps, selective catalytic reduction
units, and alternative fuels); and,
d) Emission controls installed at the wharf (e.g., a
bonnet emissions capture and treatment system).
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
Background : Oceangoing vessels are a significant source of
harmful air emissions in California that negatively affect the
health of millions of residents. Technologies in place can
reduce emissions from some oceangoing vessels while at dock.
ARB has adopted at-berth regulations to reduce hoteling (or
at-berth) emissions from diesel-fueled auxiliary engines
operating on ships while they are docked at California ports by
either on-shore applications, such as cold-ironing where the
ship is plugged into the electrical grid, or ship diesel engine
emission capture technologies.
According to the author, "ARB and some environmental groups are
afraid that allowing an emission reduction compliance option
other than shore power will somehow reduce air quality. The
purpose of this bill is not to supplant shore power, but to
AB 937
Page 3
complement shore power to achieve cleaner air by using
alternative technologies on vessels that may not be able to plug
in, or use alternative technologies for vessels at times when
they are not yet plugged in (for instance, when they are at
anchor waiting for a berth). The ARB "At-Berth Regulation"
unfairly penalizes alternatives to shore power. Alternatives
now exist that potentially eliminate more pollution overall at
lower cost, while increasing California green jobs. AB 937
would allow alternatives to shore power to be implemented that
can cost-effectively treat additional vessel types, which would
allow more vessels to be covered by the regulation, which would
ultimately result in reduced emissions and more green jobs in
California."
It is the author's intentions to ensure that the ARB regulations
(see the following) not implicitly favor shore power
electrification more than another emission capture technology
that can be used to reduce vessel emissions, if the alternative
technology can be satisfactorily demonstrated to ARB. Their
hope is that the demonstrations will prove the effectiveness of
alternative emission capture technologies to reduce emissions of
vessels at berth in the interim period while "cold-ironing" is
being deployed.
ARB "At-Berth Regulation" : The ARB regulation applies generally
to container-ship, passenger-ship, and refrigerated-cargo ship
fleets that visit California ports that meet certain port
visitation requirements. The regulation ultimately requires a
fleet operator to reduce at-berth emissions from its vessels'
auxiliary engines at each California port by 80% by 2020. The
regulation provides vessel fleets two options to reduce
emissions: 1) shut down auxiliary engines for most of a vessel's
stay in port and connect the vessel to some other source of
power, most likely grid-based shore power; or 2) use alternative
control technologies that achieve equivalent emission
reductions.
According to ARB, for fleets using one or more control
techniques including electric power from the utility grid,
electrical power from sources that are not part of an utility's
electrical grid (distributed generation), or alternative control
technologies to reduce the emissions of the fleet, the owner or
operator of the fleet is required to comply with the following
compliance schedule:
AB 937
Page 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Date |Reduced Onboard |Equivalent Emissions |
| |Power Generation |Reduction Option |
| |Option | |
|---------------------+---------------------+---------------------|
|Jan. 1, 2010 |Shore-power equipped |10% Emission |
| |ships must use shore |Reduction |
| |power if available | |
| |at berth | |
|---------------------+---------------------+---------------------|
|Jan. 1, 2012 |Shore-power equipped |25% Emission |
| |ships must use shore |Reduction |
| |power if available | |
| |at berth | |
|---------------------+---------------------+---------------------|
|Jan. 1, 2014 |50% shore-power |50% Emission |
| |visits and power |Reduction |
| |reduction 1 | |
|---------------------+---------------------+---------------------|
|Jan. 1, 2017 |70% shore-power |70% Emission |
| |visits and power |Reduction |
| |reduction1 | |
|---------------------+---------------------+---------------------|
|Jan. 1, 2020 |80% shore-power |80% Emission |
| |visits and power |Reduction |
| |reduction1 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the regulations provide fleet emission credits that can
be accumulated and used by fleets complying with the equivalent
emissions reduction option.
Emissions Control System, Bonnet Technology : The bill's
sponsor, Advanced Cleanup Technologies Inc., has developed a
technology for eliminating the air pollution created by
oceangoing vessels in ports and from locomotives in rail yards.
The system for the marine application is referred to as the
Advanced Maritime Emissions Control System (AMECS).
AMECS is deployed on oceangoing vessels while at anchorage or
berthed for unloading and loading cargo. Vessel exhaust gas is
captured by an innovative bonnet that attaches to and surrounds
the ship's diesel exhaust stack. The captured emissions are
sucked through a duct for removal of toxic pollutants. AMECS
can be either barge- mounted or located on the dock.
AB 937
Page 5
According to the sponsor, the AMECS can reduce Sox by 99%, PM by
more than 95%, and NOx by 99%, with very attractive cost
effectiveness. Further, the system does not require that the
ship be modified to capture and treat the exhaust gas.
Support : Writing in support, if amended, the Pacific Marine
Shipping Association (PMSA) contends that "PMSA is extremely
sympathetic to the arguments behind this legislation. The
current ARB regulations regarding at-berth vessel emissions
favor electrical grid "cold-ironing," the most expensive and
least flexible solution possible, while purposefully
disadvantaging the alternative technologies which could have
allowed vessels to comply more efficiently and cost-effectively.
As a result, the industry will ultimately be responsible for a
total regulatory burden resulting from the current rule to the
tune of approximately $1.8 billion with little ability to
minimize costs. We are so sympathetic to these arguments in
large part because we have made them ourselves, prior to
implementation, when PMSA and the ports asked for additional
flexibility in the regulations' implementation? Unfortunately,
these arguments were ignored by ARB at the time of adoption and
now our members and the state's public ports have already begun
to make significant investments in shorepower infrastructure on
our terminals, and in the vessels that will need to plug-in in
only a few short years. And, in turn, we must ask that your
bill reflect the fact that such investments have already been
made and must be accounted for in a fair and equitable manner.
We can only support this legislation if it adopts amendments
which establishes either a credit or a claims process to avoid
stranded investments and to help make whole those ports,
terminal operators, or vessels which have been proceeding
responsibly to prepare themselves for the full implementation of
the at-berth rules as developed by ARB and ensure that they are
not unduly burdened for acting in detrimental reliance on the
regulation itself."
Related Legislation : AB 1064 (Furutani) of 2011, would have
made changes to the Program relative to shoreside electrical
power infrastructure projects that are administered by
California ports. That bill was held in this committee as ARB
made appropriate changes to their program in terms of allowing
the use of averaging vessel calls to meet compliance
requirements.
AB 937
Page 6
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Advanced Cleanup Technologies, Inc. (sponsor)
Pacific Marine Shipping Association (support if amended)
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Ed Imai / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093