The air district regulating the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles is considering a rule to cap emissions. Farm groups have locked arms with unions, shippers and hundreds of organizations to plead with the district’s board to take a more collaborative approach to cleaning up the air in environmental justice communities.
The specter of an indirect source rule specifically targeting two of the largest gateways for U.S. container exports has loomed on the horizon for years and may soon come to life. Staff for the South Coast Air Quality Management District had expected to draft a regulation for board approval in 2023. The agency initially proposed an emissions cap, with a potential limit on the amount of volume passing through the ports.
A coalition of more than 200 agriculture, business and labor organizations formed in opposition to the rule, warning it would limit trade and hurt industries throughout the country.
“It’s just another thing that our farmers and exporters will have to figure out and see what it means for their long-term business models,” Tracey Chow, a federal government affairs specialist at the Western Growers Association, told Agri-Pulse in an interview last year.
District staff said they would prefer the industry reduce emissions by investing in cleaner equipment but acknowledged reducing the cargo volume would be one way to comply with the potential rule.
The heavy pushback led staff to delay the regulation to August 2024 and host several more work group meetings with stakeholders to brainstorm reduction strategies. Staff have yet to draft any language for the rulemaking and recently bumped back their timeline further, with the expectation of initiating the regulatory process in the first quarter of 2025.
This month the coalition again reached out to the mayors of Long Beach and Los Angeles in a letter. The associations argued the rule would “strangle the goods movement industry, damage the regional economy and eliminate port jobs,” describing the action as punishing “the supply chain for doing business in Southern California.” The coalition urged the cities to focus instead on building the infrastructure needed to reach the state’s zero-emission goals. The industry can only invest in the energy transition if it remains healthy and is not burdened by a port rule, the groups reasoned.
Adam Borchard, California Fresh Fruit Association The letter highlighted the economic benefits of the ports, with more than three million jobs, about $20 billion in annual labor income, nearly $50 billion in economic output and $2.7 billion in state and local tax revenue.
The coalition has also reached out to Governor Gavin Newsom, requesting a meeting to discuss the lack of infrastructure and planning needed to meet the state’s goals. A letter to the governor claims the current pathway “elevates the hope of meeting unrealistic environmental outcomes” while ignoring the quality of life for people and the prosperity of the business landscape. Newsom has not responded to the letter or to the previous attempt for a meeting sent nearly a year ago.
Many of the coalition’s points once again filled the district’s conference room last Friday, when dozens of advocates came before the board for its monthly hearing. The port rule was not on the agenda but took up most of the attention that day.
Natasha Villa, external affairs manager at the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, saluted the successes already underway with reducing local emissions. Since 2006 diesel pollution has dropped 91%, nitrous oxide 72% and greenhouse gases 20%. Carrying that sentiment further, Christopher Allen, who directs health, safety and environmental policies at APM Terminals, said the Port of Los Angeles is on track to reaching zero emissions ahead of the 2030 goal laid out in a clean air action plan for the two ports.
It’s easy to be “in the know” about what’s happening in Washington, D.C. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse news! Simply click here
“Achieving the continued emissions reduction hinges on critical investments in infrastructure to fully electrify our terminals, with 18 additional megawatts of reliable and resilient power,” said Allen. “We ask AQMD to help us achieve our goals by redirecting its efforts to help deliver the necessary infrastructure to implement the projects already underway.”
The infrastructure needed for the transition is available neither at the ports nor in the San Joaquin Valley, stressed Manuel Cunha, who is president of the Nisei Farmers League and spoke on behalf of African American Farmers of California. Cunha, who has engaged in clean air policies since 1990, explained how the port rule would impact farmers throughout the state. Most of the valley’s population of four million depends on agriculture. But shipment delays for its exports would drive buyers to other countries to procure fresh fruits and vegetables, he said.
Farmers depend on timely exports for their perishable products, added Adam Borchard, director of government and public policy at the California Fresh Fruit Association. While an emissions cap would disrupt the flow of goods, imposing mitigation fees on exports “would similarly restrict our access to markets abroad and be just as detrimental,” he said.
Representing the Milk Producers Council, Betsy Hunter-Binns asserted that the disruptions would result in “closed markets, spoiled products and food, and direct impacts on the availability and price of food for people here in the United States, California and abroad.”
Several union representatives lined up to voice their opposition to the port rule as well. Representing more than 90,000 workers, the Rebuild SoCal Partnership argued the proposed cap would risk shutting down terminals and would jeopardize thousands of jobs. According to Political Director Benjamin Lopez, many of the partnership’s members live in the nearby neighborhoods the district seeks to clean up.
“We urge the AQMD to collaborate with labor and industry to find solutions that protect environmental responsibilities in Southern California and workers and livelihoods,” said Lopez.
Yet several environmental justice advocates urged the board take even more aggressive measures than a cap to protect those neighborhoods and to force the industry to shift more quickly to zero emissions.
“I can tell you statistics about how harmful pollution from the ports is and why the Port ISR is critically needed. I can remind you about the number of emergency room visits, hospitalizations, lung and heart diseases, and even deaths in the region. But these statistics are not new and do not humanize the severity of the problem,” said Vanessa Rivas Villanueva, a research and policy analyst at Earthjustice. “Communities living near the ports have waited nearly a decade for the Port ISR.”
Air quality in the district failed to meet federal attainment standards every day this summer, noted Villanueva, adding that “children out of school were breathing some of the most harmful air in the country.” She pressed for regulatory targets that would ensure “those responsible for harming people's health are not let off the hook for merely taking actions they are required to take.”
The calls for action drove one board member to break protocol and respond to the public comments.
“I hear loud and clear our EJ community, our labor community, that we all want to breathe clean air,” said José Luis Solache. “I do hope we have everybody at the table, because every voice matters.”
The many assertions made in the hearing spurred Wayne Nastri, the district’s executive officer, to respond. He emphasized to the commenters that the district has not drafted any language on the rule.
“We agree, infrastructure is absolutely critical. Without it, how are we going to deploy the technology?” said Nastri. “The challenge before us is how do we collectively work together to make sure the infrastructure is deployed as quickly as can be?”
He defended the district, noting it has already invested as much as a billion dollars in local, state and federal grants into infrastructure, with more expected soon from U.S. EPA.
“Work with us. Help us define [the rule],” he said. “Get us something that we can bring before you for consideration that you'll approve.”
For more news, go to Agri-Pulse.com.
