The draft plan outlines a new set of strategies for the harbour complex to further reduce air pollution from all port-related sources.
In a commentary published in the Long Beach Press-Telegram, PMSA president John McLaurin wrote that his organisation agrees that further emissions reductions can and should occur. However, he also said that the ports' proposed revisions, don't lay out the path to "a win-win on the economy and the environment," reported American Shipper.
"Instead, their proposals focus on aggressive environmental mandates with no measure of cost-effectiveness, no comprehensive financial feasibility analysis, no funding plan and no business rationale for these goals," he wrote.
Mr McLaurin took particular issue with a provision mandating that all marine terminal cargo handling equipment create zero harmful emissions by 2030. A study commissioned by the PMSA has estimated that moving to zero-emission technologies across the two ports would cost between US$16 billion and $28 billion statewide over the next 30 years, plus tens of billions more in operating costs.
According to the ports' plan, however, the cost to move to zero-emissions equipment would cost only $1.8 billion and the port-side infrastructure would cost be $2 billion.
"To get such dramatically under-estimated costs, the CAAP revision is putting all of its eggs in one basket: unrealistically assuming that non-existent electrified cargo handling equipment technology will be developed, tested, work as planned and be affordably priced and produced in a quantity to meet the ports' rigid timelines," Mr McLaurin wrote.
Also criticising the proposed CAAP update is the Teamsters union, which said in a statement that the new plan would "severely exacerbate the exploitation" of port truckers that the union says has been taking place for many years.
The Teamsters' primary complaint is a component requiring the phasing in of new clean engine standards for new model trucks entering the port drayage registries starting next year, followed by a truck rate structure that encourages the use of near-zero- and zero-emissions trucks, with the goal of transitioning to a zero-emissions drayage fleet by 2035.
As was the case when the first CAAP was adopted by the ports in 2006, those drivers classified as independent owner-operators would be required to foot the bill for transitioning from older, heavier polluting trucks to newer, cleaner rigs.
"Forcing the cost of the estimated $3 billion-$8 billion for near- to zero-emissions trucks onto the backs of drivers once again is not the solution," Teamsters Local 469 spokesman Fred Potter said.
In a commentary published in the Long Beach Press-Telegram, PMSA president John McLaurin wrote that his organisation agrees that further emissions reductions can and should occur. However, he also said that the ports' proposed revisions, don't lay out the path to "a win-win on the economy and the environment," reported American Shipper.
"Instead, their proposals focus on aggressive environmental mandates with no measure of cost-effectiveness, no comprehensive financial feasibility analysis, no funding plan and no business rationale for these goals," he wrote.
Mr McLaurin took particular issue with a provision mandating that all marine terminal cargo handling equipment create zero harmful emissions by 2030. A study commissioned by the PMSA has estimated that moving to zero-emission technologies across the two ports would cost between US$16 billion and $28 billion statewide over the next 30 years, plus tens of billions more in operating costs.
According to the ports' plan, however, the cost to move to zero-emissions equipment would cost only $1.8 billion and the port-side infrastructure would cost be $2 billion.
"To get such dramatically under-estimated costs, the CAAP revision is putting all of its eggs in one basket: unrealistically assuming that non-existent electrified cargo handling equipment technology will be developed, tested, work as planned and be affordably priced and produced in a quantity to meet the ports' rigid timelines," Mr McLaurin wrote.
Also criticising the proposed CAAP update is the Teamsters union, which said in a statement that the new plan would "severely exacerbate the exploitation" of port truckers that the union says has been taking place for many years.
The Teamsters' primary complaint is a component requiring the phasing in of new clean engine standards for new model trucks entering the port drayage registries starting next year, followed by a truck rate structure that encourages the use of near-zero- and zero-emissions trucks, with the goal of transitioning to a zero-emissions drayage fleet by 2035.
As was the case when the first CAAP was adopted by the ports in 2006, those drivers classified as independent owner-operators would be required to foot the bill for transitioning from older, heavier polluting trucks to newer, cleaner rigs.
"Forcing the cost of the estimated $3 billion-$8 billion for near- to zero-emissions trucks onto the backs of drivers once again is not the solution," Teamsters Local 469 spokesman Fred Potter said.