Good afternoon or good morning to those of you to the West. Welcome to the Talking Freight Seminar Series. My name is Jennifer Symoun and I will moderate today's seminar. Today's topic is Clean Ports.
Before I go any further, I do want to let those of you who are calling into the teleconference for the audio know that you need to mute your computer speakers or else you will be hearing your audio over the computer as well.
Today we'll have three presenters – Arman Tanman from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Carter Atkins from the Port of Los Angeles, and James Jack from the Coalition for Responsible Transportation.
Arman Tanman is a senior staff engineer in U.S. EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Arman started as a mechanical engineer and spent 13 years investigating cars and trucks. For the past eight years he has been involved with heavy-duty diesel engine programs, regulatory activities, and compliance testing.
He currently works on port related issues promoting diesel emission reduction technologies and strategies.
Carter Atkins is an Environmental Specialist for the Port of Los Angeles' Environmental Management Division. He manages air quality programs at the Port. Mr. Atkins has been with the Port for three years working on projects that have focused on ocean-going vessels, alternative maritime power, zero emission vehicles and regulatory issues.
Prior to working for the port he worked as an environmental specialist for the city of Los Angeles -- for other departments including Los Angeles world airports and bureau of engineering.
Prior to working for the city of Los Angeles he worked with an environmental consultant focusing on regulatory compliance. James Jack is the executive director of coalition for responsible transportation.
Since its inception in 2007 C uranium. it has grown to include lead are importers, trucking companies and ocean carrier who is represent the largest and most progressive customers and service providers at our nation's ports.
Through the C uranium T clean truck initiative the private sectors are working in partnership with America's ports to establish industry supported clean air programs that are environmentally and economically sustainable.
Today's seminar will last 90 minutes with 60 minutes for present Is and 30 minimums for Question and Answer Session.
Please make sure you send your questions to everyone and indicate which presenter your question is for. The presenters will not be answering questions during the presentation but I will start off with the questions typed into the chat box.
We run out of time and aren't able to address all questions we'll attempt to get written responses from the presenters.
The PowerPoint presentation use today are available for download from the file download box in the bottom right corner of your screen.
Presentations will also be available online within the next few weeks along with a recording and a transcript.
I will notify all attendees once these materials are posted online. One final note, talking freight seminars are eligible for 1.5 certification maintenance credits for AICP members.
In order to obtain credit for today's seminar you must have logged in with the first and last name or if you are attending with a group please make sure your name is typed in the chat box.
Today's seminar is yet not available on the website and I will send out an email to everyone once it is available for credit. I also urge everybody in attendance whether
or not you're applying for credits to download the evaluation form from the file share box and submit it to me after the webinar. We'll now go ahead and get started. Today's topics for those of who just joined is clean parts.
As a reminder if you have questions during the presentation type them into the chat box and they'll be answered in the last half-hour of the seminar.
Our first presenter will be Arman Tanman of the US Environmental Protection Agency. Arman, if you give me a second I will bring up your presentation. You can go ahead and get started.
Thank you, Jennifer. My name is Arman Tanman and I want to talk about the national clean diesel campaign and the clean ports program.
Our national diesel campaign is a comprehensive approach of basically tackling diesel emissions around the United States by regulatory approaches and voluntary approaches.
For the past couple of decades we have been working on addressing diesel admissions from trucks, non-road equipment, locomotive and marine vessels and ocean going vessels, and from a regulatory continued tonight is makes sense
and only for new engines. There are over 14 million existing diesel engines so we have developed a voluntary program for that to retrofit with technologies or strategies to reduce diesel emissions from existing engines. And to do that,
we used verified technologies, devices that are cost effective and even though these might be not as cost effective to buy, we try to offer some kind of incentives or funding or recognition to do these retro fits.
To start off with regulations, I want to share our basically our history of what we have done. We first try to address high volume sources. This makes sense for two reasons. The first is because of technology transfer.
It is most cost effective to develop new emission control technology for high volume applications.
This way the RND expenses can be spread out over a high number of products as experiences gained with new technology can be applied to a growing number of applications.
Ocean going vessels, all of the diesel applications have standards in place that drive or will drive the use of knocks and PM after treatment technologies such as SCR and diesel particulate traps.
The industry likes that to spread the cost over time and the different applications to recoup some of their investment. Second, the greatest emission reductions originally achieved for the highest volume applications. However,
as the emission from these applications are reduced, the largest remaining can be made from shipping.
As you can see from our 2009 PM inventory map, we have been tackling the trucks because of their high proportion number of PM emissions coming from trucks that's basically 24% from trucks, highway trucks, 27% from non-road,
which consists about half, but as you can see the marine and the diesel marine is about 17%, but our projections for 2030 shows peninsula reason to be very high, consisting of half.
That's because we have been cleaning up the cars, trucks, and non-road equipment.
Several years ago, March of 2008, we have adopted are more stringent PM and knocks emission standards for locomotive and marine diesel engines and this was a three part program where we tightened the engine standards
and even for new as well as when necessity are remanufactured, and we set out near term emission standards two for locomotive and marines and set longer term standards as for tier 4 for newly built locomotive and marine engines.
In this graph I want to point out how far we have come along. The X axis or the bottom axis is Knox emission and the bottom is PM emissions. 1990 emissions at those levels and as time went on we addressed like in '94 and '98, 2004
and 2007 and 2010 trucks the emissions significantly went down. We reduced PM and NOx emissions by over 95%. That's basically the same tactic we're using for marine engines. As you can see, marine emissions are currently higher
and will be getting lower and it is a phased in approach.
Another area is the ships and we addressed ship emissions back in December of 2009, but we couldn't just do that for US ships, so we have integrated with IMO, international maritime organization, to set global standards.
As seen on slide 7 we have global NOx controls for roughly 20% production for new vessels. That's starting now, and also PMand Sox control through the fuel in 2012 and 2020.
The 2020 levels are of course very low, and that could be delayed subject to fuel review that we're going to have in 2018. Another important thing that these an exes provided was for an ECA, an emission control area,
where countries can apply for stringent standards for their specific area.
We have adopted for North America and Canada basically a 200 perimeter area for the ECA, meaning ships coming into these areas have to burn the lower sulfur fuel. The emission control areas basically will be lower SOX,
fuel going down to 1% fuel sulfur level starting in August 2012 and even lower than that down to 0.1 in 2015 on, and this will result in about a 96 -- we expect to reduce SOX emissions by 96% and 85% of PM.
To show the emissions reduced we tried to put these maps and some people might think, oh, the emissions are only at water or only immediate area where the ships are, and that's not true because we're looking at health analysis
and emissions analysis. We see the ship emission levels we can see as far hundreds or thousands of miles inland even, and this is graphed or actually mapped shows that even though the red areas you see are directly impacted,
but you can see going as far as Kansas in the light green and light blue.
Similar for ozone, that's a result of NOx emissions, and of course it is concentrated on the East and the West Coast as well as in the Gulf. Also, especially for sulfur, again, it is just it is in the predominantly in the water area
or coastal areas, but the emission impacts goes all the way as far as the inland United States.
You might ask why we're doing these. It is basically to reduce emissions and to protect the public health, and to be able to show that it is beneficial for the public, we have done and with office of management, budget,
and other offices within the government, to show a cost benefit analysis. I mean, any regulation requires a cost benefit analysis, and we have done that and we expect
and I just want to point out what kind of cost benefit analysis was done for each of the different regulations that I mentioned before.
As you can see, we started with highlight duty highway which result the in a 5 to 1 meaning that every dollar spent you saved $5 in health costs, and this grew for highway engines and then for non-road engines
and then as you can see it is a 36 to 1 benefit for ocean going vessels. We have been doing -- we have been starting in the last couple of decades if you combine all of those costs and benefits,
it is basically a benefit to cost ratio of 20 to 1.
To shift gears, I mentioned those are the regulations, but to shift gears into our voluntary programs, we have noticed that ports have a high degree of pollution, so we have tried to assess the pollution at the ports
and there is more than 40 major ports are located in non-attainment areas.
That means that EPA actually looks at the air within certain areas and measures it, and we can see that about 88 million people live in these 39 areas that do not meet the PM national air quality standards.
To combat the pollution at ports or at least to foster emission reductions at ports, we have a clean ports program and have been targeting all types of diesel emissions from ports. We worked with port authorities, terminal operators,
shipping, truck, and rail companies which that have been also very positive. They wanted to work with us, and we're basically promoting cleaner diesel technologies through education, incentive programs, financial assistance,
for diesel reduction at parts. The backbone of this is also our verification program, so any device that's that we recommend or approve of has to be verified through us, EPA or Carb, and we basically have a recognition program.
I don't know if most of you heard about our smart wave program and I will mention it later, too, about called the smart way transport partnership which provides tools, information
and recognition to reduce carbon footprint for the freight industry, and not only because we realize that not only the freight supports but all types of other ships and rail and marine.
We want to expand that smart rate program to other nodes basically.
What we have looked at clean ports is basically to reduce pollution through technology approaches and operational strategies, and we like to say the five R's are the way to do it as refueling with cleaner fuels, retrofitting, repairing,
rebuilding, repower organize replacing, and because every port is different and every case is different, each we have shown and also given case examples of different ports of how to do it. As I mentioned, every port is unique,
so there is different strategies and not only technology strategies but also operational strategies such as improving the port efficiency by the input and output and using launch for power
and considering air quality impacts while there are security changes at a port.
I mentioned about the backbone of our program as a technology verification and what we tried to do and this is in EPA and California, is to look at technologies and to give confidence to the public that these devices actually do work
and are durable. Some of the key technologies include like diesel particulate filters, crank case, SCR systems, and we have a website called a verified list for EPA and California of all of these verified systems.
We also encourage engine upgrades which actually is a good way for clean up some of the marine engines, some of the marine engines stay around for a long time and as I mentioned cleaner fuels, vehicle replacement, idle reduction
and even hybrid technologies that some ports are em parking on.
Of course we had to offer some internationals. Congress was fortunate to give us funding last several years, and even though you hear about government cutting back,
this is one of the few programs in the government that is endorsed by both parties even though we had a bipartisan party last year, with our 2011 budget, and everyone was in favor of it.
I mentioned -- I just wanted to point out we received funding to clean up diesel emissions through the funding program and in '08
and we were planning for '09 but because of the economy we had the American Recovery Act in the middle of 2009 where we were given a big lump sum of money to basically give to entities and then we were funded in '09 and '10
and as well as a 50 million in this year.
What we have been focusing on not only the highway of course but also the marine and we realize some of the biggest gains are in marine and locomotive and non-road, so we have been working with ports
and basically encouraging ports to do marine and port related projects, marine and basically anything at the port.
As you can see we have been working some of the funding that we have given, the grants that have won in several ports around the United States.
I would like to show some of the examples of different types of projects starting with marine repowers, and we have done -- ordered about $4.5 million award grant to Nescaum to upgrade 13 vessels and these are very old,
some are very old engines.
Another project was in the Great Lakes and we awarded $1.2 million for steamship company to basically repower with a and also more than marine example is a tug boat in Pittsburgh able to repower
and rebuild an existing engine to meet newer standards and also actually save fuel, too, so the ship owner or the tug boat owner was very happy with that.
At the port of Baltimore we have done a variety of things, another grant consisting of cargo handling equipment, drivage trucks, tug boats, and that was about 3.5 million,
and we have been also pushing to encourage more smart way type related projects and smart way focusing on freight and expand further
and in the smart way example we provided port of New York with a grant to basically an incentive program to replace the older drayage trucks with newer models, and we would basically this would basically replace 1993
or older Drayage trucks with 2004 to 2008 trucks and the last slides I have is about Port of Los Angeles. We have been doing a lot with the Port of Los Angeles, and this is just one example to basically replacing and repowering
and retrofitting different harbor craft equipment at the port.
With that my slides end, and there is some more information about contacts that we have a great website that has actually more examples of projects we have at ports and if you need to contact me
or my partner who works in charge of the cleaning parts program, Bill Jones, there are a numbers there as well as for regulations we have actually our regulatory people whose name is Mike Samulski. Feel free to contact me or any one of us.
I will answer questions later, and then I guess next is Carter with Port of Los Angeles.
Thank you, Arman. I will take the presentation down to bring the next up and you can download in the bottom right corner of the screen and they will also be posted on line following the webinar.
You will be able to get the information from there. I will now turn it over to Carter Atkins of the Port of Los Angeles.
Thank you, Jennifer. Thank you,Thank you, for that great presentation. A lot of what you talked about dovetails into what I am going to talk about,
so more of a local level so today I will give everybody an update to the clean air action plan. I am going to talk about the cap, the accomplishments to date,
and then in 2010 we did an update to the cap specifically related to the SAN Pedro bay standards and emission benefits and the cap is is actually the first clean air action plan developed by a port
and in this case the Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach collaboratively worked together to develop this joint program.
A lot of what we did is in lock step. The cap is a planning document which identifies the path forward for reducing air quality impacts from port operations,
the plan for most part is focused on actions that can be taken over the next five years so these are all near term strategies. With our efforts with the cap, the ports you can and the agencies, the EPA, carb,
and the agency that is provided extensive input into the port's air quality planning efforts.
It has several guiding principles.
First we wanted to identify and implement programs that will minimize health risks.
For the sources that operate in the port we're focused on reducing emissions of diesel particulate matter. In California diesel particulate matter has been identified as a carcinogen. Second,
the ports also wanted to contribute to our fair share of the reduction in emissions to assist the region with attainment of ambient air quality standards. To do this we're building upon past efforts and working on with the agencies
and industry to implement effective programs targeting NOx, SOx, and DPM emissions.
Third, the ports are working cooperatively to set consistent standards implemented at the project level and at the source level. We wanted to ensure the two ports would be coordinated on the requirements
and we also felt it was critical to coordinate with the agencies to ensure near term requirements being implemented at the port level would be consistent with the regulatory direction
and eventually would be over taken by regulatory requirements that would help level the playing field for the industry.
Lastly, it is critical the part be able to modernize facilities and accommodate the demand for cargo through these ports. We recognizes our ability to accommodate that cargo and continue to grow would require significant changes
and efforts to reduce the impact from port operations therefore we have been aggressively moving forward in that direction. For example, the port of Long Beach,
the middle harbor project through the strategies being implemented at the project future emissions, will be half of what they were for baseline conditions.
I know it is a lot of information on that slide.
Now I will get into the accomplishments. The original cap was adopted at a joint port meeting in November of 2006. Since then over the last three and-a-half years there has been a lot of things that have been accomplished in that time.
First, I would like to highlight the clean truck program. One of the most significant efforts has been the development, approval and implementation of clean trucks program.
We spent a lot of time in this group discussing elements of the program, and throughout the development especially during 2007 when the program elements were being defined
and each port adopted the clean truck program tariff in late 2007 which established the compliance schedule for clean trucks, and that action followed by additional updates to the tariff to enhance the programs.
We already reached two major milestones. In October of 2008 all pre-1989 trucks were banned, and in January of 2010 pre-1993 trucks were banned, and then 2004 through 2003 trucks required level 3 plus NOx retrofits.
I would like to talk about heavy duty vehicle measure. It called for constructing an L&G facility in the port area. The site was identified, and clean energy was awarded the lease to move forward with the construction.
The fueling operation began in early 2009. In addition, the ports have also financially supported the development of other fueling stations in the port area.
Next is the technology advancement program.
This was established in 2007. It is an advisory committee established with port staff, EPA, Carb, AQD and basically they do technical review and funding support of new technologies to reduce emissions.
TAP funded package projects include the tug boat, the Caroline Dorothy, a diesel electric hybrid, hybrid RTG cranes,
AMEX which you may know is an emission reduction system where it essentially you put a hood over the exhaust stack of a ship and the exhaust is treated.
We're looking into LNG engine development, CNG truck demonstration and more recently involved in two projects. One is the sea water scrubber on an ocean going vessel, auxiliary engine and a class 8 hydrogen fuel cell folk.
To date the ports have made available $9 million and have funded 5.4 million in projects vessel speed production is the slowing down of vessels to 12 knots from 40 nautical mile says from fur Furman.
The project was originally developed in 2001 so prior to the cap and compliance has been steadily climbing and as you can see the compliance rates for both ports is extremely high
and in 2009 we expanded our program to include the 40 nautical mile zone.
Second is a vessel fuel switch incentive program, a one-year incentive program which was in effect between mid-2008 and mid-2009 where we paid the delta between bunker fuel and .2% sulfur fuel and main engines again in the VSR zone.
I will show you that slide right now.
So here you have the port of Los Angeles and then there is two AHRQs, the first AHRQ is 20 nautical miles and then the second AHRQ is 40 nautical miles and you see the recognized shipping zones there, and then the over water boundary.
That is essentially part of our emission domain where we calculate the emissions. Coming to the ports.
Next is shore power. To date Port of Los Angeles has implemented shore power at three container Berts and two cruise Berts.
Switching now to locomotives, PHL has upgraded in 2008 to tier 2 and tier 3 Gen sets and significant reductions in harbor craft and cargo handling equipment is also done and a lot of funding through the grant funds
and the industry has made significant investments to clean up those emissions. Again, there are CAuranium BA-- carb regulars to back stop the efforts here.
With all of those in place since 2006 we started to see significant emission reductions from the port sources, and we are on track to achieving the original forecast in the CAP.
Comparing the 2008 emission inventory data with the 2008 forecast and the original CAAP, emissions are lower than originally expected for all pollutants.
So we also want to look at our emissions, not just at the port area but also to the Southern California air basin. So with all of our emissions reductions there is still work to be done.
Looking at the 2008 port emission inventory data in comparison to the 2008 emissions throughout the basin, the ports you will see the orange slice there still make up 17% of particulate matter, 9% of total NOx and 54% of SOx.
So this is very important as we continue with our focused efforts to ensure the port emissions continue to reduce to meet basin needs.
So that was a general overview of the accomplishments and now I will talk about the updates to the cap. So the cap is a living document. Ports made a commitment to continually update and improve upon the CAAP to monitor progress,
plan for the future and maximize success. As part of the update we reviewed the existing manners to ensure the information was correct and reflective of the efforts under way or planned for future.
We also wanted to evaluate new areas that require focus. As a result, we have add the new measures to our ocean going vessels and also want to make sure that the plan reflected the latest regulatory requirements.
A lot has happened at the state level, federal level and international level.
As Arman mentioned, the ECA.
We wanted to reflect those actions in the plan. It is always the belief behind the CAAP that while ports need to take their own near term action eventually all of these should be implemented more broadly.
The first is the development of the San Pedro day standards. This is the most significant change.
The ports have proposed long-term reduction goals in both emissions of diesel particulate matter, NOx, SOx, and reductions to in-health risk.
As I just mentioned the San Pedro bay standards are long-term emissions and health risk reduction goals for the two port complex which encompasses all port sources, ocean going vessels, heavy duty vehicles,
commercial cargo handling equipment, harbor craft, and rail. The ports established targets for fair share reductions in emissions to assist the region in meeting the 2014, 2.
5 PMand the 2013 eight-hour ozone national air quality standards and in addition the ports establish a target for health risk reduction for people living in the port area.
The emissions forecasting is developed by the technical working group which were port staff, EPA, carb, and South Coast management district.
We utilize the latest cargo forecast included, port cap commitments and currently adopted regulations as of July 2008 and looked at forecasted emissions to 2014 and 2023 compared to 2005 baseline.
Moving forward I will talk about 2020 for health risk standard and 2023 date for are emission reduction standard.
2020 is the target year for achieving health risk reduction standard because it generally lines with the carbs state goal tore reducing diesel particulate matter related health risks from the goods moving industry by 81 a% below -- 85%
below 2000 levels by 2020.
So here are the emission forecast results. In 2014 we see a reduction of 72% of diesel particulate matter, 19% NOx, and 93% SOx. In 2023 we see 75% reduction in diesel particulate matter, 18% reduction in NOx and 92% reduction in SOx.
So for the health risk assessment is develop again with the upon agreed upon protocol with the technical working group, and the health risk assessment was based upon spatially allocated 2005 and 2020 forecasts,
diesel particulate matter emissions and the comparison of the 2020 to 2005 baseline.
Next these next two slides actually show the modeling results from the bay health risk assessment tool indicated that between 2005 and 2020 population weighted average risk will decrease 74% throughout the port region
and 72% in communities within a 2-kilometer snake of the ports boundaries and major good movement corridors through the implementation of presently feasible and available cap measures and existing emission control regulations,
in order to close the gap and reach the goal of 85% reduction in health risks reports seek that in and develop new measures.
The next slide 1.2-kilometer boundary around the ports and the emission reductions forecasted emission reductions.
Here is our proposed standards. By 2014 72% in diesel particulate matter, 22% reduction in NOx, and 92% reduction in SOx and by 202377% reduction in diesel particulate matter, 59% reduction in NOx, and 92% reduction in SOx.
So for 2020 you will see that we have to reduce by 85%, so we're a little bit short. So what we are going to do is achieve or implement the strategies through the CAAP.
We will identify -- we will keep implementing existing CAAP strategies and then also look at new CAAP strategies which I will talk about next to help hopefully meet this goal.
So to meet this -- here is a new strategy that are in the 2010 CAAP. First is OGB5 and 6. These are ocean going vessel measures that focus on transmitting emissions so what we are looking at is emission reductions for main engines.
OGB5 is attracting the cleaner vessels to the ports and then OGV6 is looking at retrofits technologies for on the main engine during transit. So scrubbers, exhaust gas recirculation,
and fuel technologies to reduce diesel particulate matter, and second is RL2. What this is is a rail measure to include by 2023 all rail -- all locomotives entering the port should be tier 3,
and then RL3 measure includes new locomotive engine standards and support of carb's 95% tier 4 standard by 2020.
With that we hope to reduce our emissions and meet our health risk goals, so thank you very much.
Thank you, Carter. We'll now move onto the final presentation given by James Jack of the Coalition for Responsible Transportation, and I want to remind everybody if you have questions for any of the presenters,
please type them into the chat area and following James' presentation we'll get to the question and answer session. James, you can begin.
Great. Thank you so much. Good morning, every. My name is James Jack and I am the direct for for the coalition for responsible transportation
and really appreciate the opportunity to present before the talking freight webinar group today and you have heard I think a tremendous overview about public sector efforts both at the federal
and the local port levels that are taking place, specifically to reduce port related emissions and from a variety of sources but certainly port trucks has been a central focus of those efforts as well
and so I am here to talk a little bit about the private sector effort and how port customers
and service providers play a very important critically important role in the effort to help meet the air quality goals in our local port communities and nationally as well.
That's really what the coalition for responsible transportation is about. C uranium T was formed in 2007 which was really right around the time that port clean air programs were beginning to really hit their critical mass
and certainly as we saw in Southern California the ports in long beach were really pioneers in this regard, and were among the first in the nation to develop these comprehensive programs
and it quickly became clear to leading private sector companies that there was an important role for the private sector to play in the development of these programs by virtue of the fact that being port customers and port users
and also sharing the dedication to meeting the air quality goals of the ports
and improving the environmental quality of port communities led us to create a group that became facilitate to help facilitate partnerships with ports around the country, not just in Southern California,
certainly starting in Southern California and around the country to give the industry a way to demonstrate its environmental responsibility.
As folks are well aware, many of the leading members of both the import and the export community and their service providers have strong corporate commitments to sustainability across their operations, certainly transportation among them,
and the transportation sector has long benefited from leading environmental policy through programs like smart way and others and those programs really didn't deal with port related activities.
We really needed to draw a tight focus around port activities and reducing our environmental footprint. So that's what C uranium T was formed to do. As you can see,
since C uranium T's formation we really attracted a number of leaders both cargo owners, ocean carriers, trucking companies, and also more recently in partnership with some of the major ports around the country as well,
and in joining C uranium T, these are companies that will be able to better serve customers, better meet the needs of the communities they work in, and do business in
and better help the reputation of the shipping industry to demonstrate the commitment to environmental sustainability,
and while our members are many of the largest players in the shipping industry of course we're only a small part of the total numbers of shippers
and providers in the field so we always try to use opportunities like today's talking freight webinar to educate folks,
and let people know that there is a venue for this type of private/public partnership to build these clean air programs around port communities and invite people to join us
and so the question always gets back to why are you focused on trucks and trucks have easily become the most visible source of port related emissions in and around the port communities
and certainly not the only source obviously as the presenters identified. We have a variety of sources in the port communities from locomotives to ocean going vessels and the trucks are the most visible.
They drive through the local communities back and forth to the part terminals and certainly create localized effects on port communities.
The impact of truck age is of specific interest as we're developing these clean truck programs, and as you can see in the slide here, the older the truck,
the more significant polluter it becomes by virtue of the model year standards in effect at the time of the truck's manufacture, so you can see that the difference between a 1993 truck and a 2004 truck is roughly a 95% reduction in PM
and a 60% reduction in NOx that's for 2004 truck equipped with a DPF, so what we're seeing is getting older trucks out of the port fleets can have an immediate and significant impact on air quality
and so certainly our initial goals have been to get pre-'94s off the road first and begin phasing in a newer and cleaner truck fleet.
This is getting back to Southern California. This is a copy of full page newspaper ad that the coalition for responsible transportation ran in Southern California newspapers,
and really the attention was being developed around clean truck programs.
We wanted to make clear the industry supports the goals, the air quality goals that were developed in Southern California, and the industry was an agent of change,
not -- we wanted to make clear that it wasn't something that industry was going to be opposed to, that we wanted to work collaboratively to help the ports meet their goals,
and this was a way for us to let the community know that we're serious about improving air quality,
and certainly you know we really began to garner some positive recognition then in Southern California but since then nationally about private sector efforts to help ports solve these problems,
and so since that time we have launched a national partnership called the clean truck initiative with the environmental defense fund, and we launched that over a year ago, and really brought in the vast knowledge and health
and air quality expertise of the environmental defense fund to help us partner with port communities to identify health effects, to identify air quality inventories, and to begin to set goals to reduce those health effects
and improve that air quality and it has really been an unprecedented industry environmental partnership to effect that type of change.
As you can see, although there is some a little bit of formatting issues on the slide, unfortunately, we have been active in many ports around the country, obviously starting in Southern California, L.A. and Long Beach
and clean truck programs have migrated around the country and up the West Coast and across to New York, New Jersey and we're focused heavily in the mid-atlantic and southeast right now, and Houston as well,
so we have a real nice robust national campaign to build upon the work in Southern California and bring clean air to port communities around the country. I will briefly go over the objectives for the clean truck initiative.
Obviously the primary one is to develop program -- clean truck programs that have full industry support around the country. Partnerships with environmental organizations help us promote our sustainability efforts.
They help provide recognition to companies to encourage them to join in these sustainability efforts, and they help provide us the scientific measurement tools that can identify the air quality problems
and then also help us measure our progress in meeting them.
Working with carriers and drivers, financial support, transitioning to clean equipment is comes at a cost as folks are aware, and new clean equipment is a financial investment,
and one that can't just call on the shoulders of the individual driver. It is one that has to have the participation of the trucking company, and of the shipper, of the cargo owner, and which is something we believe very strongly in.
Partnering with government agencies, certainly Madeira and the clean diesel program administered through the EPA has been an incredibly valuable source of funding and seed money for truck replacement and retrofit programs
and working with state and local agencies to provide funding for additional incentives, grants, low interest loans, things that can help bridge the gap between the old trucks and the new trucks
and finally collaborating with port authorities, and this can take a variety of different forms between hard truck bans as we have seen in many communities to voluntary programs that we're seeing in other communities.
The bottom line is clean up the fleet and get the oldest and highest polluting trucks off the road. The benefits, this is really where it comes down to any time I sit down with a large cargo owner or a large trucking company,
they want to know, you know, why is it in our interest to invest the resources it will take to clean up our fleet? The benefits are many fold.
Certainly the community benefit demonstrating positive commitment to the communities that we serve, and improving the reputation of the industry, but more importantly it is the right thing to do.
There is an economic benefit as well. As we have seen, the Dray regulations are increasingly present in ports, state and the federal level around the country
and we don't want to put ports in a position where they are fearful that adopting clean truck programs will drive discretionary cargo away from their gateways. They don't want to lose customers,
and they don't want to lose market share and as a country we don't want to lose market share to some of the other ports competing for that international commerce,
and so part of our goal is to make sure that parts know they have the support of their customers and they have the support of their service providers that by instituting clean truck programs they don't have to choose between clean air
and cargo and certainly there is an infrastructure benefit.
We see often times that clean air is the key that unlocks infrastructure projects.
That is usually the number one speed bump that these projects hit, whether it is the Gerald Desmond bridge in Southern California that will be litigated for over a decade
and was finally approved by virtue of the fact that the dramatic air quality improvements that were enjoyed in Southern California led to a lot of the oppositions to that bridge project dissolving so terminal expansion projects that we
have seen in many places around the country as well.
We know that clean air is a way to facilitate growth of ports and really remove that barrier and then finally, as Arman mentioned in his slides, we know that we have new,
federal standards that are going to be tightening the air quality dash the federal air quality standards around the country, and to the degree that we can begin to prepare
and get ahead of those standards will mean we'll avoid disruptions in the supply of available trucks, we'll avoid disruptions in the supply chain, and shippers, carriers and ports will be better prepared
and positioned to meet these new standards if they take action now.
The final slide, we have a huge and very impressive group and audience that's on the call today many of whom are thinking about ways that additional ports or additional parts of the country can implement their own clean truck programs,
and so what we like to offer is by partnering in this effort you know we really invite ports, cargo owners, service providers, to demonstrate their commitment to sustainability.
This gives folks the ability to improve the environmental quality of port communities and again preserving the competitive business environment in our nation's ports.
We want to make sure that as we grow we grow in a way that doesn't risk diverting cargo to other places and because not only of the economic issues that are involved there,
but frankly we would rather have cargo moving through America's gateways on cleaner trucks than moving through neighboring countries dirty trucks and then coming into the nation that way. This is a better path forward
and as industry we're really feel very strongly by partnering together we can really drive a cleaner future for the goods movement industry.
So I want to thank you for letting me join today. We're very excited about being at the forefront of developing these environmental programs and look forward to any questions and answers.
Thank you, James. We'll go ahead and start the Q&A session. The questions have been typed online. I encourage everybody to keep on putting questions as we go through these,
and once we go through them if we still have time we can open up the phone lines for questions. I am just going to start off at the top in the order of the questions came in, and, Arman, the first question is for you.
I think you did partially answer it. Are you aware of similar efforts to address PM emissions for ships and ports in Canada and Mexico?
Yes, thank you for asking that question. As I mentioned Canada does have the same standards and they have adopted ECA just like we have and Canada usually follows all the regulations so we are in sync with Canada
and Kansas do is in sync with us, but Mexico is another matter. Mexico because they're, you know, fuel industry PEMEX is a state owned company, there is a little bit behind, so I think they're working on it, but they're not there yet,
so eventually they will, I think. I don't know that much more about Mexico joining the ECA. I hope that answers the question.
If not to the person who asked, feel free to type in more to clarify or if we get to the phone lines, you can ask over there. The next question is Carter.
Are trucking arriving from Mexico subjected to the same standards of trucks registered in the US.
If a truck does come up, they have to register and could get a like a one-day pass, but eventually they would be -- they start coming up regularly, they would be enrolled in the clean truck program.
Thank you. The next question is for Arman. Why did the ECA not have the significant impact in the Northeast that it does along the rest of the coast with New York being a major port?
That is a good question, I think another EPA worker mentioned it, and I think weather has a great impact on that because of weather conditions and the prevailing winds, and I think that's the major contributor, but as you can see,
there are impacts maybe less than other areas, but it is weather related.
Thank you. Back to a question for Carter. How sensitive are the 2014 and 2023 reduction estimates to the cargo forecast? Are they updated when the cargo forecast is updated?
Those emissions reduction estimates don't change, so in theory we could actually meet those emission reduction goals with a low growth model, but the emissions estimates
and the cargo forecast are done separately so the next time we do an emission forecast it will be the next time we update the CAAP so we can see where we are.
And now a question for James.
Where does C uranium T stand on the need for drayage --
Thanks. That's a great question.
We have developed our model in a way that can accommodate either independent owner/operators or employee drivers. Obviously, you know, right now both types of drivers are in the marketplace,
and we feel strongly that whatever the employment status of the driver is important to provide them with the financial tools and support that they need to get clean trucks on the road,
and so we have developed kind of what we call the C uranium CRT financial model and often compare that to a three legged stool where the shipper and cargo owner is one leg of the stool, and the trucking company is the second leg,
and then the driver, whether independent or employee is the third leg of that stool, and we strongly believe that unless each of those players has a financial role in the support of the transition to new equipment,
these clean truck programs aren't going to be economically sustainable over the long-term, so we really advocate and support the need for shippers to play a role in supporting financially their provider's transition to cleaner equipment,
even if the shipper which is true in most cases doesn't directly own that equipment. There are a number of models that exist where shippers are paying kind of a clean truck rate,
where they're paying a premium to ensure that all of their cargo is moved with the clean truck, and that premium is then combined with the trucking company
and allows for financial incentives to help image before the cost of the new truck so it is not falling squarely on the shoulders of the drivers.
We feel that is a model that really has to have everyone's support in order to work and be viable. We want to make sure it is a model that works for all drivers involved in port Drayage
and in order to do that it has to address independents and employees.
Thank you, James, I believe this question is for you as well. I no he no clean trucks programs listed for the Great Lakes ports. What is the status there?
Yeah. Well, that is something that we very much intend to move forward on in the future. We really started in C uranium T as I mentioned although we represent many of the largest shippers in the industry,
we're small in the number of the shippers and providers in the field, and so we have had to move at a somewhat measured pace
and what we have done is started with the interactions with the top ten container ports by volume in country that are representative of the largest source of emissions in the country through containerized trade,
and as we have seen clean truck programs get well established certainly on the coast coast, New York, New Jersey, begun to focus on the Mid-Atlantic and southeast, and our hope is that as we continue to move along
and get these clean truck programs set up, we are really going to be looking at the Gulf of Mexico and the Great Lakes as the next regions that we want to really focus on and perhaps, Arman,
I should give you an opportunity to address the question as well from the EPA standpoint.
I think James did a great job explaining that, but, yes, we are as James said we did focus on major ports and as we go around to the smaller ones now, we do plan it,
and it is cleaning up Drayage trucks is very important as I mentioned in one of my slides. It is a very cost effective approach so we will get to those eventually.
I had a question that come in sent directly to me, James, and can you name or direct us to a list of shippers currently paying a clean truck premium so we can encourage locally active shippers to do likewise?
All of the CRT members have support the CRT financial model as a best practice and all of the CRT members have committed to providing financial support to their Drayage provider to help the transition to new equipment.
Obviously as folks are aware, any discussion of actual rates that are being paid are something that is not the purview of a trade association for obvious antitrust reasons.
As a best practice it is something that all of our cargo owners endorse and it is something that they negotiate directly with their service providers and in each of the markets that they're involved in,
and we are certainly trying to use CRT as a way to attract other shippers to adopt this as a best practice as well.
We still have plenty of time left. That's all the questions I see typed in. I do encourage you if you have additional questions to type them many
and I will also ask the operator to give instructions if you want to ask a question over the phone.
At this time I would like to remind everyone in order to ask a question please press star 1 on your telephone keypad. We'll pause for just a moment to compile the Q&A roster.
There are no questions from the phone line.
Another was sent for James. Can you comment on whether truck bans, aid or ( indiscernible ) voluntary program like CRT.
That's a great question. The issue of truck bans is really interest unique to each port community. CRT supported truck bans in all of the communities in all of the port area that is adopted them. That is ports of L.A. and Long Beach,
Oakland, New Jersey, and we believe it can be a very effective tool in helping to transition the fleets into especially for when are you talking about the pre-'94 trucks,
which seems to be the common denominator as truck bans get implemented, it is really trying to get the oldest and dirtiest trucks out of the Drayage fleet at their respective ports.
It is always the 80/20 rule. 20% of the trucks create 80% of the pollution. We believe that is an important and effective tool for those ports who choose to use that tool, and we are supportive of that as a tool. That said,
every port is unique. The needs of every port are quite diverse for a variety of reasons, and the geography of the port, the air quality issues of the port, and also the political atmosphere of the ports,
and we know that there are some that prefer to explore voluntary approach before a regulatory approach for a variety of reasons,
and we are just as happy to partner with those ports to make sure that a voluntary approach has the best possible chance of succeeding. When we look at a voluntary approach versus a truck ban,
certainly there are some different challenges that we face in trying to really intent vise behavior
and that's probably the most valuable tool to transitioning the truck fleet F we're going take a volunteer approach we have to make sure we have some incentives in place, financial incentives,
that help whether it is down payment assistance, low interest loans, whether it is a scrappage incentive, incentive. We're looking where owner, operators, trucking companies
and employees who did deployed clean trucks can get recognition as a green parity and then also potentially benefit from operational incentives, and, for instance,
having gates that are dedicated for participants in a green operator program so that you can reduce the weight and the turn time for clean trucks,
and/or potentially extended gate hours for a green operator where you can afford the green operators a way to get an extra couple of turns per week to help them recoop the investment in the clean truck,
and also encouraging through programs like smart way our shippers to encourage them to contract with participants in programs like smart way that have made a commitment to cleaning up their fleets
and giving preference to the folks that are participating in that government program, so there are a lot of different tools that are available, truck bans are one of those tools, a very important one
and we know it is not a perfect fit for every port, and so we believe the truck programs can be successful on a voluntary basis as well and we work with the port to try and get their air quality goals met, whether it is voluntary
Okay. Thank you. Let's see. I don't believe -- wait. We have a question from Tony in the room with me.
This is a question for Armand and James. A lot of the conversation today has revolved around trucks and container ports. You talk to us a bit about what you're doing in the bulk ports, particularly in the area of green diesel emissions.
Met me address that first. Thanks for the question.
We have a verification program similar to carb, and we're trying to foster technologies to reduce the diesel emissions for marine, locomotive and marine
and locomotive which is which lacks some of the technologies now because the emission standards or the requirements are are still far away so we have two types of verification programs.
One is where the vendor or technology manufacturer comes to us and says there is a device you can put it on a locomotive and can you please verify it.
Of course when they give us that information we also want to ask them where is the data to be able to reduce it and usually it takes time to develop that, and data
and the testing for us to make sure that it is as I mentioned that it is reduces as much as they say it does and also the durability of it, and sometimes that takes several years to get to us.
We realized there are emerging technologies which is another program we have in our verification program where they can -- technology manufacturers can come to us and say they have this device or strategy
and there has been reductions strategies and other devices that are put on locomotive switchers and Gen sets and we're looking at those and so the emerging technology is a little different and that technology manufacturer comes to us
and says we have this idea and please -- and we have this testing program and it will take one or two years and we say, okay, you're on the emerging technology list
and the reason they want to be on that list is it makes them eligible for federal funding. They can combine or work with a public entity such as a port or other public entities or nonprofit organizations to apply for the grant money,
and use their technology, so that's the voluntary approach, trying to encourage the technology by funding or grant incentives to the foster the technology, and remember in locomotive and in marine there aren't that many of them out there,
both the research and development is a high amount compared to the number of sales they're going to get and in the past they haven't really focused on that technology because it was not a money maker.
They're basically sold technology -- new technologies to new engines, and so we're trying to foster retrofit market, and that's through grant incentives.
Maybe Carter can add more.
Yeah. On the tanker industry, it is difficult because the nature of that business, you know, we have been focusing on our container fleet and crews because those vessels show up once a month or once a week,
so there are returning customers. The bulk, the tankers, you may get that vessel calling the port, you know, one time a year, and due to the just the business model, and the vessel could be calling port L.A.
one month and then over seas for the rest of the year, but that being said, we to help meet our goals and our standards, you know,
we are looking at we have to -- we like to do some sort of shore power equivalent to the nonregulated fleets, so that's anything that's want container, cruise or reef.
Yeah. This is James. I will kind of chime in. I think much along the same lines is that bulk is something that I think we intend to increase our focus on in the coming months, and as a long-term goal
and I think part of it supports a more kind of broad scale approach to port activities as well that I think ties in really nicely to what the US EPA is doing with regard to clean ports,
and I think that ultimately we certainly don't want to limit ourselves by focusing on solely on containerized traffic, that we know that opportunities exist for emissions reductions from additional types of cargo,
and the container traffic was our first objective in this effort, but it is certainly not our only objective much as we intend to continue working with additional ports around the country,
and we intend to hopefully bring some solutions to the table for that type of cargo as well.
Thank you. The next question is for Arman. What are federal agencies like EPA doing to clean up freight train locomotives including idling and railroads and what's the role for state agencies involved in goods movement and air quality?
This is similar to the last question that I mentioned. We're working on marine and locomotive technologies and the regulations are there for new locomotives, but as it is going to take some time,
so in the interim we have the verification program and grant volunteer programs to provide grant incentives to foster technologies in this area.
Two more questions that were sent to me. Also another one for James.
Can you comment on how shippers can best ensure that freight trucking with logistics providers pass on clean truck premiums to contractor owner operators to help them afford and maintain cleaner trucks?
Yeah. This is James. So that's a question that we have gotten off and is how do you make sure if you are a shipper that is supporting the financial -- financially supporting the deployment of clean equipment,
how do you make sure that that financial support is reaching the owner of the equipment? If in the case of an independent owner/operator who actually owns the truck. You know,
really what we say is I think any shipper will tell you this as well, that is something that is enforced through the terms of the contracts with their providers,
and I think if any shipper were to I understand too out that their providers, you know, they're paying a premium to make sure their cargo is moved with clean equipment
and that financial support is not being shared in the manner it is intend the, that carrier won't be working to are that shipper for much longer.
It is something that carriers take very seriously when you are dealing with some of these large shipper that is move tremendous amounts of volume. It is something that is very strictly enforced by the shippers and as I said,
it is something that if there is -- if that premium is not being used in the way that it is intended, I can assure you that contract is not long for this world.
Thank you. And now a question for Arman and Carter. How can environmental agencies -- how can they best work with their transportation agency counterpart to identify and fund the best port based projects?
In some states the comfort line extends only as far as land slide connection support rather than that of cargo handling equipment and coking restructure to reduce vessel emissions?
I guess the question is how can environmental agencies and transportation agencies work together?
I think first place to start would be doing an emissions inventory of the area and see what are the basically low hanging fruits and we in our grant RFPs request for proposals ask for a cost effectiveness of the project
and it is I think if the port or the area has emission inventories and can assess which projects are the most cost effective, and identify that to EPA, that would I think make it easier for them to do it
and basically they need to coordinate among themselves what are the important projects and get the port or public entity for air environmental group or something to propose the idea to EPA and suggest a project
and I think that answers the question, and, Carter, would you like to ask?
With the CAAP, that's what we did. We did an emissions inventory. We have been doing emission emissions inventory since I think going back to 2005, and we have been doing one every year and so we looked at our sources.
In the '06 CAAP we identified controlled measures.
Those are really whittled down from a list of 40 different measures down to a few measures per source category
and I would like to highlight the vessel speed reduction which is just a slowing of vessels is extremely cost effective because you don't have to do any retrofits to the vessel, and now that's with the downturn in economy, worldwide,
you know, you have heard this term of slow steaming really creep up, so with these large vessels you have direct drive engines, so there is a relationship between engine power and speed, and so you slow down or fuel consumption and speed,
and so you slow down and you have -- you save not only on criteria pollutants and also greenhouse gas.
Okay. I don't see any other questions at this point right now. We do still have a few minutes left. I will go ahead and start reading the ending information, but if any other questions come in I can pause and read those out
and go back to them.
I do want to thank all three presenters for three great presentations today. As you can see by the number of questions I think we have a lot of interest in it and the topic area.
I also want to thank everybody for attending today's seminar. The recording from today will be available online within the next few weeks on the talking freight website and I will send out a notice when that's available
and it will also include a transcript and a presentation and you can download the presentations from the bottom right corner of the screen right now and actually you will be able to go back into those websites that you're on now
and download them if you didn't get a chance to do it during the seminar at any point between now and the next seminar in June. You basically just log into the website the same way you did today.
As a reminder, if you are AICP member and want to receive 1.5 certification maintenance credits for today make sure you either were signed in with the first and last name or if not type your name into the chat box.
As I mentioned the seminar is not on the AICP website and I will send out an email once it is.
For everybody in attendance download the evaluation form and send it back to me. We to want make sure the seminars continue to meet your needs. The next seminar already held June 15th and be about a freight situational awareness project.
It is not available for registration and once we have more information on the topic and presenters I will open it for registration
and send out a notice to the freight planning listserv which is our primary means of sharing information about upcoming seminars. If you haven't joined the list I encourage to you do so
and the web address to do so is showing on your screen.
I didn't see any additional questions so I think we will go ahead and close out for today so thank you to Arman, Carter and James and thank you, everybody, for attending and have a great rest of the day.