National Ports Initiative

EPA Subcommittee Seeks to Identify and Control Sources of Port Pollution 

Across the United States more than 150 deep channel sea ports serve our nation. These economic engines of commerce support hundreds of thousands of jobs and act as the conduit for the import and export of essential (and some not so essential) goods.

Across the West Coast, the major container ports are slowly beginning to dig out from the backlog created during the ILWU and PMA negotiations. Unfortunately, it will be months before the terminals will be back to “normal” operations. But, for anyone in the port trucking community, “normal” leaves much to be desired.

The labor slowdown merely highlighted issues that dray men and women have endured for years; congestion, equipment shortages, extended turn times all of which limit productivity and essentially cost everyone. With the ports in the national spotlight as of late, it would only seem fitting that the EPA would want to highlight the work it is doing via subcommittee to tackle emissions at ports across the country. The overall effort is referred to as the National Port Initiative which will seek to define emission and sources at ports across the country.

Primarily the group is relying on the Mobile Source Technical Review Subcommittee Port Work Group to come up with strategies for regulatory development and enforcement, community engagement and identification of barriers to technology deployment and how to remove those barriers.

The subcommittee does mention voluntary actions for ports, but a voluntary program on the federal level can become a local mandate with the stroke of a pen. The first step is establishing emissions inventories or at least best practices; tactics will be recommended for reductions, and those ports with the most need for emissions reductions will need to embark on a program to reduce.

Granted, there are many different strategies that can be deployed for emissions reductions within port complexes. It will be expected however, that operational issues won’t be addressed and instead technology forcing or behavior modification will be the driving force for emissions reductions across the country.  

See EPA Presentations here: http://westcoastcollaborative.org/files/webinar/2015-03-march-goods-movement.pdf 

Truck Rules All Around?

Tightening Ozone Standard May Squeeze On-Road Trucking Fleet in US

Lost within the debate over energy policy and climate change is the tightening ozone standard and how it may impact the on-road trucking fleet in many states across the county. The plan is under scrutiny from Congress, but not because it will impact truck fleets, but because refineries and power providers will more than likely face increased costs and possible layoffs.

A newly formed subcommittee called the Interior Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee has been tasked in part to keep a close eye on the Environmental Protection Agency. One thing they will be looking at besides keeping a watch on EPA management and the national park maintenance backlog will be the tightening Ozone standard.

This is not the first time at the dance for the lower ozone standard. The Bush Administration originally delayed initial implementation of the 70-65 ppb recommendations in 2008 when a 75 ppb standard was adopted. When Obama got into office, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said the standards weren’t legally defensible.   The EPA forged ahead on tightening the lower standard but was sidetracked in September 2011 when the plan was delayed right before the 2012 election.

So in 2013, environmental groups sued. In April 2014, the 9^th circuit court said the standard must go forward and a final rule in must be in place by October, 2015.  California has the most to lose when it comes to the lowering standard because many of the regions across the state would be out of attainment. Being as such, the Golden State has until 2037 to meet the standard, while the rest of the county would have until 2025.

The debate on this issue will quite possibly be more political than regulatory.  The standard seems to be moving forward unless a legal challenge is sought from the opposing side. Congress may however be able to put pressure on states to look for other sources for reductions besides some of the more well-heeled refineries and power producers.

For the transportation industry, the Ozone standard may in fact prove to spur additional incentive opportunities for turnover to alternative fuel platforms it may also spur state governments to look at tightening in use turnover standards on heavy duty trucks. See “Diesel Starts with Die” CLICK HERE.

States including but not limited to, Arizona and New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Delaware may need to take a serious look in how they are going to meet the standards.

This may include accelerated turnover of heavy duty trucks to help to meet the Ozone standard EPA is proposing. According to the EPA, older diesel engines and other mobile sources are significant contributors to NOx pollution. NOx is a pre cursor to Ozone, so in theory, reducing NOX emissions will also reduce Ozone.

Although Ozone can occur naturally it is difficult for sates to predict or even control natural phenomenon like thunder and lightning storms which can bring stratospheric ozone closer to Earth’s surface. They can however control through state regulation or legislation the configuration of in-use, heavy duty diesel engines that operate within state or local boundaries. If the problem is bad enough, states basically have the blessing of the federal government because of the Clean Air Act. This makes legal challenges difficult to say the least.  Typically the first step is requiring public agencies to adopt cleaner technology. Once that happens, private industry is next.

It is very possible that natural attrition of the truck fleet may not happen fast enough for states to meet the standard. And despite the latest federal engine standards, in-use emissions from the legacy fleet in these states will be in the crosshairs. This will mean state or possibly federal regulations depending on the ability of state regulators to tackle the problem. 2025 isn’t that far away.  Stay tuned!

 

 

 

Truck Fleet Faces $523,675 Fine for Non-Compliance with CARB Rules

When They Find You, They Will Fine You...

This month, CARB fined a Taft, CA based trucking firm over $500,000 for not complying with several HDD programs. Typically, fines of this size have been reserved for importers of non-compliant small engines or manufacturer and distributors of cleaning chemicals and supplies.  This recent fine is a blatant signal that CARB is out there and stepping up enforcement activites on motor carriers operating in California.

Although it may take many weeks or sometimes months to reach a “settlement”, truck operators should understand that all it takes is one violation to bring down the house.
 
Over the years, many fleets have given CARB the “one-fingered-salute” when it comes to the in-use truck regulations; resting on the fact that the limited enforcement capability of CARB would allow them to operate without incident through the ever tightening requirements. Those days are numbered; when CARB finds a fleet that has not been doing anything, they have little, if any sympathy.

And what makes these fines even more unsettling is the fact that not only are fleets required to pay the citation, but they must also bring their fleet into compliance within 45 days of the settlement.

The trucking fleet in question must not only demonstrate compliance, but they are also required to fulfill a payment plan of over $43,000 to the state each month through the end of 2015. The fleet must also designate an individual to attend classes on existing regulations as well as maintenance procedures for emission control equipment. Not to mention submitting annual smoke testing reports and even installing “Low NOx” software on particular model year engines.

CARB has made it crystal clear over the past 15+ years of HDD enforcement that fines are not to be considered a “cost of doing business”. In fact, CARB has statutory authority to fine a truck fleet up to $10,000 per day that a fleet is out of compliance with the statewide On-Road Truck and Bus Rule.

Considering the On-Road Rule started in 2012, a single citation that leads to a full fleet audit may be enough to put a fleet out of business.  CARB has even been inclined to levy unfair business practices lawsuits at fleets for non-compliance. And no matter where a fleet is based, if they come into California, they are subject to a host of regulations.

Although the cost of compliance is high, CARB expects fleets to meet the deadlines or face the fines. To put it harshly, fleets have three choices when it comes to dealing with CARB compliance this late in the regulatory scheme of things; suck it up, pass it on or go away. It is the current regulatory reality here in the Golden State.

While many carriers have boycotted California, even more have not, and if they want to do business here, they must address their CARB compliance issues. When they find you, they will fine you, no way around it.

Details of this settlement and others can be found at http://www.arb.ca.gov/enf/casesett/casesett.htm .  

NOx, Ozone and Soot! Oh My!

 

The industry is headed back down the regulatory road, whether we know it or not.

In California, a good portion of the industry is still recovering from the first round of CARB imposed truck turnover requirements. With recent developments it is likely that more is still to come. In fact, portions of the industry are going to be facing down a whole new set of requirements within the next 10-12 years, maybe sooner.

With the imminent lowering of the Federal Ozone standard and most recently the SCAQMD estimating that it will not be able to meet 2015 PM standards, the industry is going to again be brought into the discussion for additional emissions reductions to help meet state, federal and local standards. In all honesty and speaking frankly, they never left the discussion or in other words, no rest for the weary.

The on-road sector has had its share of regulations thrown at it, but no one can stop the revolving dunk tank that has become the suite of diesel rules. Just when the industry is drying out, a whole new set of technologies are lining up. Both CARB and the SCAMD have made no secret about offering a lower optional NOx standard to engine manufacturers in order to allow access to incentives for Natural Gas engines that meet a tighter NOx standard. Not to mention efforts in the ports of LA and Long Beach to electrify or hybridize truck movements in and around the port.

Distribution centers in California are also being looked at to help further define new mediums for accelerated truck turnover in California. Facility caps are currently being considered in the “back to the drawing board” freight efficiency measure coming from CARB.  South Coast is also pushing for facility caps, and in fact has been for many years due to immediate and overdue needs for NOx and PM reductions. CARB’s facility cap requirement would limit the amount of emissions (including GHG) that could be generated by activities at covered locations throughout the SCAQMD region and eventually throughout the state.

The engine platform of the vehicles entering the facility will have usage calculated and emissions will be given weight. Each vehicle will contribute to an overall level that CARB will seek to cap; the cleaner the engine, the smaller the contribution. Facilities will need to monitor truck traffic and quite possibly limit trips, unless a cleaner engine platform is utilized.

Driving these requirements are interim dates for achieving emissions standards set by the federal government (See  “You Want NOx With That” Click Here ) that need to be met in the SCAQMD in 2020. The more recent 2015 deadline for PM in SCAQMD, may possibly be missed, which will force the District to look for additional reductions. This may include more burn limitations and an aggressive enforcement effort, but time will tell.

Lucky (if you want to call it that) for the private on-road trucking fleet, the SCAQMD has no authority for regulating mobile source emissions from the private sector. There are some limited exceptions; however, SCAQMD can’t propose an in-use truck rule. They can go after the ports and they may be able to go after distribution centers under a facility cap, especially if the diesel magnet source argument holds. But, as always, time will tell.

In the meantime the EPA will tighten the standards for Ozone across the country, as the agency is under court order to adopt a plan by October 2015.  Under this new Ozone plan, California will have until 2037 to attain the new 70-65 ppb standard. The rest of the country will need to meet the standards in 2025.

The 2037 date, although well into the future, will no doubt push California to look for more NOx reductions from the trucking fleet. NOx is a precursor to Ozone, so if you reduce NOx, Ozone should follow. For Heavy Duty trucking, that means low NOx alternative fuel platforms or quite possibly a mandate for the Heavy Duty electric hybrids of myth and legend.

Make no mistake; the discussion is far from over. Pay close attention to the “man behind the curtain” as the great and powerful Golden State is just getting warmed up. Stay Tuned!

 

 

Industry Listens as CARB Reacts

Statewide Truck and Bus Rule Amendments Become Inevitable Reality

It is no secret that thousands of operators in the industry are struggling to survive the harsh regulatory environment that exists here in the Golden State. Until recently, many were speeding headlong into a regulatory brick wall; despite lawsuits, threats of more lawsuits and even outright boycotts, there was little relief and even less sympathy for those in this particularly precarious position.

Fleets of all shapes and sizes are finding themselves in this conundrum. They are spread throughout the state and throughout many different vocations and specialties; these are 3^rd and 4^th generation companies, mom and pop shops, single truck operators, two man fleets, corporations, partnerships and LLC’s.  Every configuration under the trucking business umbrella has found themselves behind the 8 ball at one point or another over the last 4 years. Suffice it to say, it has not been easy.

Many fleets have handed in the keys; others have just sold their businesses, while others are merely scraping by; making just enough to afford their monthly truck or retrofit payments. Granted, there have been opportunities to help offset upgrade costs from “Uncle Sugar's Goody Sack” in the form of buy downs, grants, and loan assistance programs but, alas, it has fallen well short of the needed capital to become fully compliant, and adding to the conundrum is the fact that not everyone can qualify.

The unfortunate sons who don't qualify for these incentives have had no choice but to go it alone, and now their efforts and hard earned capital expenditures seem all for naught as their businesses hang in the balance, teetering on the whims and fancies of those seeking to save face 4 years after the fact.  

Although the recent changes are being proposed under the mantra of helping the industry, it stops well short of recognizing the investments made by fleets across California. It does little to provide immediate relief to help offset mounting costs and competition from non-compliant carriers.

CARB chairwoman Mary Nichols was recently quoted as saying that, “the industry spoke, and we listened”.  With many barely able to make monthly payments on equipment that was purchased in anticipation of regulatory deadlines, fleets are wondering, “Who was doing the talking?”

The idea of regulatory certainty has been turned on its head, and is now boiling down to, “damned if you did”.

For a fleet who has expended literally MILLIONS of dollars on compliance, or even a single truck guy who spent up to $100,000 on a new (or at least newer) truck, the latest “changes” that CARB is proposing  leave a whole heck of a lot to be desired.  Some provisions are easily accepted; while others need more than a spoonful of sugar to swallow (Click here HERE for Link to CARB Summary), even Mary Poppins herself would reconsider.  

Unless the industry can convince CARB that allowing a 4 year compliance pass through an unenforceable loan denial provision is just bad public policy, the for-hire trucking market in California may collapse under the weight of depressed rates and historic indifference by CARB.

There are provisions that currently exist that allow enforcement discrimination in the event of proven financial hardship. If someone cannot actually secure a loan (and can prove they actually applied), then the CARB Mobile Source Enforcement Division can use their discretion to scale back fines for non-compliance. There is no need to codify this cockamamie loan concept just for the sake of optics.

Join the discussion, your voice will matter. Click below to add your comments.  

http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bcsubform.php?listname=truckbus14&comm_period=A
 

Anticipation Grips the Industry

CARB Releases Major Changes to Truck and Bus Rule

Over the past several months there has been a groundswell of concern over recent efforts by CARB to provide proposed relief to an industry struggling to survive in the demanding regulatory environment that exists here in California. In part, the proposed relief is a response to mounting criticisms (and lawsuits) over how the truck and bus rule is impacting fleets of all sizes, all over the state in all types of vocations. The proposed changes were inevitable, and in many regards completely necessary. Nevertheless, how they will be interpreted is an entirely different story altogether.

The proposed changes do clear up some inconsistencies in the regulation and serve to close the loop on the "Good Faith Extension", but most of all, the relief is targeted to the many fleets who have either ignored or struggled to achieve compliance as of late, with little immediate relief to those who have already shelled out tens of thousands, if not millions of hard earned currency towards compliance since the regulation went into effect leading up to 2012.

Of great interest is how industry will respond to the proposed changes and how the available material will be used to build or break down a case for the changes. By law, CARB is required to release all pertinent data used to justify the regulation, it does stop short of allowing the public to duplicate their findings without PRA requests or potential litigation, but,  it is however an insightful treasure trove of data into how the changes are being justified.

The data contains inventory and cost estimates, sales forecasts and emission penalties and benefits along with fleet size data and estimates of the various compliance exemptions that are being utilized.  While the data does not cover the greater economic impacts of allowing regulatory passes for a specific subset of the industry, it does cover why they think it is necessary to do so. This specific industry subset consists of fleets with three or fewer vehicles over 14,000 GVWR and has been the subject of much controversy since the original exemption was proposed in 2010.

According to one provision in the proposal, if you have three or fewer trucks in this category, there is a possibility you will have a pass on your entire fleet until 2018, provided you qualify for the provision and more importantly if this particular provision makes it past the April 24th, 2014 CARB Hearing in Sacramento.

CARB staff has already prepared for a 15-day change notice to be released after the hearing, knowing full well that whatever is proposed before the Board in April will require additional changes since this proposal in its current form is really more of an exercise about what will stick against the wall as opposed to full recognition of the issues plaguing the industry.  

Granted, CARB on-road truck and bus staff should be commended for their diligence in releasing the proposed changes in a timely fashion. Nevertheless, there are major industry concerns that, on the one hand, the changes do not go far enough, while on the other hand, some changes go way past the mark and some may even be susceptible to fraud or other extra judicial activities. The playing field is being tipped; and in fact, what CARB is doing may be perceived as market interference by some, while others will cite CARB's complete obliviousness to the competitive forces driving the freight market in California.  

What cannot be denied is that millions of dollars have been invested in clean equipment upgrades over the last 3 years. Many in the industry have and are still competing against those who consciously chose to skirt the requirements; referred to in many circles as "scallywags" or "bottom feeders".  While many others in the industry just can’t afford it, CARB is lumping the two groups together, with little mechanism or attention dedicated to differentiating between the two.  From this it would seem that relief is in the eye of the beholder, but, time will only tell.

Stay tuned to C&C for more updates. Become a subscriber... Join the discussion and let your concerns be heard!

 

Bad Faith?

Typical Indifference From our Favorite Four Letter Agency

CARB is up to its old tricks again, blaming lack of communication and regulatory indifference for a misinterpreted publically advertised exemption for fleets meeting 2014 On-Road deadlines.

Basically, if as a fleet operator, you took what CARB said in the Good Faith Advisory at face value  (See Out of Touch or Out of Reach – Monday, January 13, 2014), you thought that some relief was being provided in reaching the 2014, On-Road Truck and Bus deadline.

For the most part, you were correct, unless you happened to be applying for a Proposition 1B grant and you had more than 4 trucks in your fleet.

If that’s the case, then you do not get the “Good Faith” consideration, even though you might have drastically changed your compliance plan once the Advisory was released, albeit in full compliance with the pathways put forth in the Advisory.

Nothing in the Advisory informed fleets in this category that they would not be able to use the compliance “pass” until July 1, 2014, while maintaining eligibility for 1B grants because they needed to be in compliance on January 1, 2014.

According to CARB if you are using the Good Faith Extension (GFE), technically you are NOT in compliance for January 1, 2014; so, no grant. Suffice it to say, this came as a shock to fleets who thought they were doing everything correctly.

More or less, what it boils down to is that if you applied for grants you don’t get the GFE, if you didn’t apply for grants and didn’t do anything leading up to the release of the Advisory in November 2013, then you get until July 1, 2014 to demonstrate compliance.

Many fleets are benefitting from the GFE, and they should be allowed to continue to exercise the GFE for compliance, but, it is disingenuous to allow one set of the industry to receive relief, while the other subset must adhere to the original standards.

It would have been one thing if this was clearly laid out by CARB when they released the GFE, however, it was not, and in fact, nothing in the advisory gave anyone a different impression other than the GFE was open to anyone who could demonstrate one of the GFE options.

Unfortunately for many, a simple, innocent mistake in choosing GFE once the advisory came out has resulted in them being ineligible for 1B grants (thanks CARB!). The problem is that they were never told any differently. While CARB stationary division staff sits perched in their granite and marble tower in downtown Sacramento, hundreds of fleet operators out in the market are getting the shaft.

Shockingly enough, CARB cannot understand why this is an issue; per the guidelines, fleets knew they needed to demonstrate compliance above and beyond the trucks they were using to apply for grants.

For all intents and purposes the majority understood this issue and acted accordingly. However, once the GFE was released in November, after the application deadline for the first round of funding which closed October 10, 2013, fleets were now faced with a choice; continue down the same path, or exercise the GFE and receive a small amount of flexibility for 2014 compliance. Nothing in the GFE gave them any other indication that they would jeopardize their grant status by doing so.

Of course, CARB is sticking to their guns on this, even going so far to ask, “Is this even and issue?”.

Typical.

CARB should recognize the good faith efforts of fleets applying for 1B grant funds and provide them the same opportunity for 2014 compliance demonstration just as they are allowing for everyone else in the industry. It would have been one thing if they explained this issue up front, but now, the horse is out of the barn, and the view isn’t changing.

Stay tuned…

Know a fleet in this situation...???

Contact us here or at http://www.cafleetsolutions.com/contacting-us.htm to share their info.