Which Way Forward?
By Thomas Jelenić, Vice President, Pacific Merchant Shipping Association
The Clean Trucks Program is at risk of collapse. That may be a surprise to some people. For others, it may be expected. But the reasons that are putting the Clean Trucks Program at risk are unexpected. The risk is not due to a failure of having commercially-viable zero-emissions technology today or the preposterous cost of the program. Rather, the program is at risk now due to a series of moves so aggressive that it has left the other side with no room to maneuver other than to up the ante.
The Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) is premised on multiple assumptions that underlie the approach taken. One was the idea that in the absence of a State regulatory framework to advance emission reductions, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach needed to act jointly to achieve long-term reductions. Another premise was that while the two ports competed against each other on commercial terms, a successful environmental program required consistency between the two ports. Cargo interests essentially treat the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach as a single gateway. Different environmental standards for a truck or ship that moves between 13 terminals in a single gateway would risk a race to the bottom in terms of environmental standards or impose unbearable friction in a system stretched to the limit during a pandemic-induced consumer goods surge.
Finally, the CAAP acknowledges that independent truck owner-operators do not have the financial wherewithal to purchase new, $300,000-$500,000 zero-emission trucks of sub-standard capability that cost 10 times as much as the secondary/tertiary market used trucks currently deployed.
Problems started from the get-go of the updated CAAP. Knowing they would never solve the question of reducing truck emissions unless they achieved zero emissions, the ports eagerly committed to a zero-emission goal. Of course, the plan was not grounded in proven technology, but aspirational technological development. The updated CAAP set a path to an end goal with no known path to get there. Since the technology pathway, cost, and speed were unknowable, the CAAP was instantly the victim of critics arguing that the goals could be accomplished faster if only there was a will. But the saving grace was that no one could upstage their goal, at the time the most aggressive in the nation. The ports walked to the brink and established an unassailable position. Of course, a regulator with actual regulatory authority will not be outdone and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has now upstaged the ports’ plans.
CARB has committed to a program that accelerates the transition of trucks providing drayage service by banning new diesel trucks from serving the ports in 2023. That would be one year before (2024) California requires that truck manufacturers begin selling zero-emission trucks in California. During one public workshop on their proposal, CARB staff identified laudable goals for transitioning trucking to zero emissions. Their principles included focusing on the largest fleets that were highly capitalized. Doing so would build the market for zero-emission trucks and help create a secondary zero-emission truck market in later years when the focus would shift to smaller fleets that acquired used trucks for their operation. Sound principles. CARB staff then announced that their focus for accelerated action would be trucks providing drayage services to California ports; trucks that do not meet any of the principles they had thoughtfully articulated.
Many speculate that CARB’s proposal was to goad even faster action out of the ports. With the Clean Trucks Fee on hold due to the pandemic and port staff publicly stating that it will go into effect in 2022, CARB has adopted a maximalist position that will, no doubt, force the ports to act faster. However, while that “soft ban,” as it is often referred to, seems like a solid approach to drive new technology into the market, it also drives a stake through the funding program. Government agencies, whether CARB, SCAQMD, or the ports, are prohibited by law from providing grant funds to comply with regulatory requirements. There is a real legal question about the ability of the ports to disburse incentive money in light of such a program. As a result, once CARB adopts the 2023 requirement later this year, the ability for the ports to spend the proceeds of any Clean Trucks Fee may well evaporate with the Clean Trucks Program.
It is important to underline this point. CARB is pushing for implementation of the Clean Trucks Fee; many California elected officials are also pushing hard for the Clean Trucks Fee. California is proposing a regulatory framework that could prohibit Clean Trucks Fees from being spent on new trucks. Worse, now that CARB has proposed a timeline for beginning the zero-emission transition in a mere two years, it would be political suicide for them to acknowledge the incompatibility of their regulatory proposal with the Clean Trucks Program and step back from the brink.
No doubt, the two ports are developing a response. That may be the reason that the much-awaited comprehensive road map to zero emissions is so delayed. It may also indicate that no path exists that incorporates all of these public commitments: joint action, funding for trucks, coordination with regulatory agencies. But, so far, not much has been said in any of the public workshops on this topic.
In an apparent sign of public frustration, the Port of Long Beach Board gave a public dressing down to the Port of Los Angeles at their April board meeting, even suggesting the possibility of divergent programs. So much for joint action.
The Ports may also be struggling with whether there is any longer a compelling reason for continuing their effort now that their proposed program has been entirely superseded by CARB. I can only assume, as an inveterate cynic, that if they do proceed it would be to mitigate pandemic-induced congestion through cargo diversion.
Unfortunately, each stakeholder has anted up without regard for where that will leave their “partners.” The commitments knock out key portions of the program. More importantly, the statements have been made in such a public manner that any climb down is impossible. Obviously, something will move forward, politics will prevent nothing from happening. But it is not clear that the joint Clean Trucks Program that was laid out in the Clean Air Action Plan will be moving forward.