By HOWARD FINE
The most significant environmental proposal to progress in this year’s legislative session in Sacramento takes square aim at the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, Orange County’s maritime gateways.
The legislation, AB 1101 from powerful Democratic Assemblywoman Jenny Oropeza of Long Beach, would give local air pollution control officials more power to police emissions at ports, airports and rail yards throughout the state.
The proposal has prompted opposition from a broad coalition of businesses and groups, which have labeled AB 1101 a “job killer.”
For Oropeza, the issue hits close to home. She recently recovered from liver cancer, which she is convinced was partly caused by pollution emanating from the ports.
AB 1101 passed the state Assembly in January.
The bill “will be tremendously costly to local (air pollution control) districts and regulated facilities,” according to a memo to the Legislature from the California Trade Coalition, which consists of business groups, shipping and rail companies and other diesel operators.
The coalition has its eye on a number of other environmental bills that could emerge later in the legislative session, including one that would impose a $30 fee on all containers moving through the state’s ports.
Also raising hackles in the business community: a trio of bills aimed at identifying chemicals in the environment and the human body.
But all this legislation is playing second fiddle to the main focus in Sacramento: negotiations over a massive public works program that could go on the November ballot.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed $68 billion in bonds and $154 billion in funds from other local, state and federal sources to upgrade and expand the state’s long-neglected roads, bridges, rail lines, schools, prisons and courts.
Legislative leaders have come up with their own more modest proposals with an added focus on housing.
The California Trade Coalition is concerned that amid all the hoopla over the bond measure, other legislation could slip through that coalition members believe could harm the state’s economy.
Right now, Oropeza’s bill is at the top of that list. That could change as other bills are introduced.
Besides the cost burden, business lobbyists contend Oropeza’s bill would splinter regulatory control over diesel emissions, which now is handled primarily by the state Air Resources Board.
Instead of one set of regulations covering the entire state, each air pollution control district would be free to draw up its own regulations, something that the coalition says would make it much harder for diesel operators to comply with.
Locally, the bill would give power to the South Coast Air Quality Management District to work with facilities at the region’s ports and airports to come up with a timetable and plan to reduce diesel emissions. The AQMD has identified the ports as the No. 1 polluter in the region and long has been frustrated by its inability to cut emissions there.
The power to regulate diesel emissions from ships, trains and airplanes lies with both the state and federal governments.
The California Trade Coalition also is concerned by a environmental regulation concept Oropeza has introduced with this bill, called “diesel magnets.”
“There are operations in the ports that draw diesel pollutants like a magnet,” she said. “If we can identify these, figure out how much pollution they are generating and come up with a way to spread the cost of cleanup around, we could make significant progress in cleaning up diesel emissions.”
But the trade coalition says this would merely force terminal operators and other centralized operations to pay to clean up emissions from trucks and ships that use their facilities.
“Facilities that may attract mobile diesel sources frequently do not own or have control over these sources,” the coalition’s memo said.
Oropeza said she’s open to talks with trade groups to make her bill more acceptable
Meanwhile, port officials and business groups are keeping an eye on other port-related legislation. The most controversial is SB 760, by state Sen. Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach.
It would impose a $30 per container fee on shippers to raise funds to upgrade the port’s infrastructure and help fund a crackdown on port pollution.
Business groups contend that slapping a fee on containers will raise shipping costs and ultimately, the cost of goods bought and sold by local businesses.
With this intense opposition, Lowenthal’s bill got stuck in committee last year. But it could move forward in the next few weeks. So could another key Lowenthal bill that would cap growth at the ports if they fail to meet a goal of “no new net emissions.”
Fine is a staff writer at the Los Angeles Business Journal.
