A cloud over the ports

Warning: The delay of the much-touted clean-air plan for the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach is hazardous to your health.

About 5,000 premature deaths a year in Southern California are attributed to air pollution, and the ports are a major source of it. They announced a dramatic solution in June 2006 -- a proposed five-year plan to reduce pollution by at least 45%. Its centerpiece was a crackdown on the 16,000 diesel trucks that carry cargo from the ports to nearby rail yards and warehouses. A fee would be assessed on old, highly polluting trucks entering the ports, and money from fees and state bonds would be put into a program to help replace the smog-producing monsters with cleaner models.

As might be expected, the plan met fierce resistance from the shippers, retailers and trucking companies that would end up footing much of the bill. Last week, two trade associations sent a letter to the Federal Maritime Commission, which regulates oceangoing transport, saying the plan would disrupt trade and violate U.S. shipping codes. Their legal claims may be dubious, but their economic claims are not. A study commissioned by the ports found that implementing the plan could cause serious disruption, putting about a third of the ports’ licensed motor carriers out of business and leading to a shortage of drivers, which could slow deliveries to stores nationwide.

The findings have thrown port officials into disarray. Harbor commissioners from the two ports will meet for a hearing on the issues Friday, but it’s unknown when they’ll vote on the plan or whether it will be modified. A vote had been expected as early as last month.

The shipping industry may have won a round, but it has no reason to celebrate. The California Air Resources Board is working on sweeping rules targeting pollution and greenhouse gases, and having already cracked down on diesel construction equipment, it’s about to turn its attention to the port trucking industry. Last week, it released a draft plan for phasing out older trucks that is similar to the ports’ plan, with one important difference.

Perhaps the most controversial element of the ports’ proposal is its effort to overturn current labor practices. Many port truckers are independent owner-operators who contract with small companies that assign them jobs to move cargo containers. The ports aim to force these licensed motor carriers to hire their drivers as employees. That would greatly simplify matters for the ports and improve standards of living for the drivers, but it also would be an invitation to the Teamsters to organize local truckers, a notion that justifiably worries shippers and retailers. The air board’s plan leaves labor out of the equation.

The employee-trucker model has many advantages, though it may be wiser to just set engine standards and let the labor market work itself out. What’s beyond dispute is that action must be taken as soon as possible to clean up port trucks, whether it comes from the air board or the ports themselves. Lives depend on it.