Port panels OK plan to cut pollution

Commissions for the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach unanimously approved a $2-billion plan Monday aimed at reducing air pollution even as the amount of goods passing through the complexes skyrockets.

The unusual joint vote by the traditionally competing ports came after 4 1/2 hours of often rancorous testimony at Long Beach City Hall from the mayors of both cities, area residents, environmental and business groups, vendors hawking environmentally friendly products, and truckers who are the focus of much of the plan.

“As a body, you are an atrocious, abominable neighbor ... and you will continue to be. It’s not personal, but try to put yourself in my shoes,” said Elise Trujillo, 57, a longtime Long Beach resident. “I’m not concerned about growth.... The only measurement that matters to me is less people dying.”

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa offered a different view, saying that reducing the ports’ pollution problems had to be done to continue economic growth in the region.

“This is the fifth-largest port in the world; 43% of all the seaborne goods [into the U.S.] pass through Los Angeles and Long Beach,” he said. “Some people think that’s not a big deal. Well, tell that to the people of Watts, the people of Los Angeles, the people of Long Beach who need jobs.... We need to grow green, but grow indeed.”

Villaraigosa said improvements in infrastructure and air pollution control were expected to triple the value of goods moved to $900 billion and increase port-related jobs to 1.9 million. The ports are the nation’s busiest, but together are also the single largest contributor to smog from diesel engines in the region, according to regulators.

Studies have shown that diesel exhaust causes cancer and is responsible for 70% of pollution-related health problems and hundreds of deaths annually in the Los Angeles region.

Each port will contribute more than $100 million to replace the fleet of 16,000 aging short-haul diesel trucks that move goods between freighters and railcars. The total cost for the trucks, however, is expected to be as much as $1.8 billion.

The remainder would have to come from other industry and public funds. The plan also requires international cargo ships to run on low-sulfur fuel within 20 nautical miles of the harbor, and many docks will be retrofitted to require ships to use electric power while at shore.

Before the vote, the commissioners added amendments setting interim goals to reduce pollution and slightly toughened language on developing technology to reduce greenhouse gases. The plan calls for cutting key pollutants by 45% or more within five years.

Two truck drivers spoke at the meeting, and others honked their horns outside. Most of the drivers are Latino immigrants who use aging trucks that they either own or lease from small companies. They said they are forced to idle their dirty engines for hours waiting to pick up or unload cargo.

“I hate my truck, because the pollution makes people sick,” said Luis Sera, 48, of Long Beach, who added that he has driven at the ports for seven years and works 14- to 16-hour days to pay his bills.

Industry groups that might be forced to pay for the truck upgrades or other improvements under tariffs or as part of lease renegotiations congratulated the ports on adopting a plan, but said it was not yet clear how it would be implemented.

“We’re the ‘how’ in this, and we don’t understand exactly how this is going to work,” said T.L. Garrett of the Pacific Merchants Shipping Assn., whose members handle most of the goods shipped into West Coast ports.

Responding to criticism from all sides, Los Angeles Harbor Commissioner Jerilyn Lopez Mendoza said: “If we were going to sit here working on this until we all held hands and sang ‘Kumbaya,’ we’d be here until the next millennium. This plan may not be perfect, it may not do everything, but at least it moves us forward.”

Many commissioners and port staffers also stressed that the plan was a “living document,” and that changes could and would be made. Several called it historic because of the unparalleled cooperation between the often fractious neighboring ports.

But Los Angeles Harbor Commission President S. David Freeman said it was vital to make sure the plan was implemented, noting: “History can be a harsh judge.”

janet.wilson@latimes.com