NRDC's Gail Feuer Advocates An Environmental Agenda For L.A. Ports

Gail, let's begin with an examination of vetoed legislation arguably central to improving the air quality of our region. AB 2042, a bill authored by Assemblyman Alan Lowenthal (interviewed in September's MIR), was recently vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. Assemblyman Lowenthal saw the bill as a way to both hold Los Angeles' and Long Beach's Harbor & Port answerable to environmental laws while at the same time being pro-business. What is your postmortem on his bill?

We were obviously supporters of the bill, and we were disappointed that the Governor vetoed it. In his veto message, the Governor said that he supported reducing emissions from the ports, he just didn't think this was the way to do it. So, at this point the challenge is to make sure that we tackle pollution in the ports; we just need to approach it from a different direction.

Well. there are those who say that AB 2042 was really redundant and not economically feasible, especially since the ports are supposedly enacting pollution abatement measures already. How would you respond to this argument?

Those are really two separate issues. One is, is it redundant? The answer is clearly no, because the current efforts by the cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach are voluntary. This legislation would have made it mandatory. I'm happy to rely on the good graces of those cities, but the tough part is that the ports themselves have opposed the legislation, and at various times have opposed any no-net-increase policy. So, you have two ports taking a position opposing a limit on their emissions, with the cities supporting those limits. Our concern is that you could end up with an increase in emissions, and that is what led us to support legislation that would have made those limits mandatory. In terms of the economic impacts, that is another story. In our view, we can have growth and also protect our communities. So, the bottom line is that we can and must control emissions from the ports, but that doesn't mean we need to stop healthy economic growth. We can do both.

To what extent are the already existing pollution measures working or not working at the ports?

Well, the frustrating part is that there were few measures in place at the ports. At the China Shipping Terminal in Los Angeles, a settlement now requires the port to have implemented a number of very important mitigation measures. For example, most of the ships at the China Shipping Terminal will plug into electricity instead of running their dirty diesel engines, and that is a major step forward. Similarly, all of the yard equipment used at the terminal, which can be very dirty and polluting, has to either run on alternative fuels or be equipped with pollution controls. We hope that in the future both ports will require similar measures and others at every terminal. The problem is that while those measures are working well at China Shipping, that's only one terminal.

Gail, NRDC gave a C- and a C to the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach respectively in your Clean Air Coalition's Harboring Pollution Report. How were these grades arrived at? What were the criteria employed?

What our report did is it looked at the pollution practices at the ten largest container ports in the country. The bad news was that just about every port got close to a flunking grade because, in fact, very little is being done at ports around the country to reduce pollution. Probably the only port that got a decent grade was the Port of Oakland. In terms of the grades specifically for the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, one could argue they were better than the totally flunking grades of their colleagues. And that is because both ports have some programs that are designed to reduce pollution. The reason their grades were mediocre was because the programs they have do not apply to all terminals, and there is still a large pollution problem at both ports. So, they have a long way to go.

In a September MIR interview with Jim Hankla, who is now on the Long Beach Harbor Commission, he voiced strong opposition to AB 2042, saying that the harbor did not have the authority to enact the no-net-increase standards offered by Assemblyman Lowenthal. What is your response to the jurisdiction authority limits that Jim Hankla refers to, given your agenda for cleaning the environment and the air around the ports?

I think there is no question that the ports have the authority to reduce emissions. They have the jurisdiction they need, and they just need to have the will power to exert it. For example, every time the port negotiates a new lease or a change to a lease, as the landlord, the port can require whatever air quality or other mitigation is necessary to keep pollution down. We also think the ports have the ability within their police powers to adopt regulations that are necessary for the health and safety of the community. The bottom line is that there are all kinds of things the ports can and must do to reduce pollution so that it does not unfairly harm local communities.

Gail, I think that some in the business community would argue that's a naïve assertion, that the ports as landlord are hard pressed to require anything of the shippers given the alternatives ports shippers have to do business through. Your response?

I think that the best example of why this is realistic is China Shipping. In the China Shipping situation, a court ordered that the port stop construction at the terminal. NRDC and the port negotiated a settlement that allowed the terminal to open but required implementation of significant mitigation of pollution at the terminal. At that point, China Shipping came into the negotiations and had the choice of taking the terminal with the environmental obligations or walking. It was very clear that they had every legal right to walk from the deal. Instead, they decided it was in their economic interest to continue to lease the terminal, even if obligated to reduce their emissions. Not only did China Shipping decide that it was in their economic interest, but they decided that they wanted to be a leader on environmental protection. At the opening of the terminal, China Shipping proudly handed out T-shirts that proclaimed it was the greenest terminal in the world. That is the future of environmental protection at the ports.

I think everyone would agree that was a major breakthrough, but how much of China Shipping's cargo is now meeting that standard, and what percentage of the cargo coming through the L.A. Harbor meets that criteria?

China shipping is ahead of their obligations under the agreement. At the terminal in L.A., they are required over time to retrofit five or six of their ships. The president of the company has announced he will retrofit fourteen of their ships. The obligation under the settlement is that over the next year they are required to plug in 70% of their ships as they dock at the China Shipping Terminal in Los Angeles. They are up to 30 percent, and it appears that they are destined to be up to 50 percent shortly. So, I have no doubt they will get up to 70 percent.

In terms of other terminals, I think the second example is the Matson Terminal. The only lease that has gone out to bid since the China Shipping deal was negotiated was this lease for berths 206 to 209 at the port of Los Angeles. The city decided to put the environmental, so called "green," measures into the request for proposals and, in return, got four companies fighting over the lease. Two of those companies bid for a green terminal. Two of them argued for other ways to reduce their emissions, so it is unclear how green those operations would have been. But, there is no question that at least two of the companies that responded to the RFP for the old Matson Terminal are prepared to spend their money to operate a green terminal and feel it's in their economic interest to do so. That is a major step forward and is a signal of positive things for the future.

Without disagreeing at all, share with our readers how challenging it is to metaphorically turn these ocean liners in new direction, a green direction.

The technology is here. What we need is acceptance in the shipping industry. It is fair to say that in every industry around the world it has taken time for changes to settle in. I think as China Shipping happily experiences the ships plugging in, they will spread the word and more shipping companies will come forward. NYK and Evergreen have both come forward and said that they are prepared to plug in their ships. So, I think we are headed there. It is only a question of time, and frankly, I think that change happens when the government steps in. I think that there is a slow path toward change, and either the ports or the regulatory agencies need to mandate change.

Who are NRDC's allies at each port to build a larger coalition to affect the politics of environmental cleanup?

First of all is the community, who has figured out that diesel exhaust poses serious hazards. And certainly the regulators are starting to get on top of this issue. The City Council has been an interesting ally. It was the City Council that made its views known that there was a new approach to be followed with regards to Pier J. We thought City Council was prepared to undo the approval of the project by the port. But the port itself rescinded its approval of the project and directed staff to go back to the drawing board to perform a more adequate environmental review and adopt sufficient mitigation. Janice Hahn, who represents the port area, advocated for reduction of pollution, and the Mayor of Los Angeles spearheaded the no-net-increase policy.

Lastly, we do this interview after the November national and state elections have taken place. How do you score the promise of an environmental agenda moving through national, state and local governments in the coming years?

The Bush administration has scored poorly. We have seen rollbacks in environmental protections of our air quality, water quality, our forests and natural areas. So we are gearing up for a fight because we think it will take a lot of work to maintain the environment we have, and to make it cleaner and safer for our children.