SoCal ports delay truck re-regulation plan by two months

SoCal ports delay truck re-regulation plan by two months In a move that surprised opponent and proponent alike, the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles Wednesday delayed votes to approve a controversial multibillion-dollar truck re-regulation plan by at least two months.
   The port trucking plan, originally set to be voted on in late July or early August, will now have to wait until late summer or early fall before being presented to the two ports' governing commissions.
   In announcing the delay, the ports said they needed more time to evaluate 'suggestions and conduct an economic impact study.'
   In May, the ports said they were not interested in conducting an economic impact study on the $1.8 billion plan, citing an inadequate amount of time to complete one before the scheduled board votes. When the ports did start an in-house study earlier this month, port officials suggested that it might not be done in time for the late July or early August votes. Insiders at the port say the study, being conducted by a prominent Los Angeles economist, is set to be completed by Sept. 1.
   'Many business stakeholders in particular wanted more economic data, and this extended timeline will enable us to study the economic implications of the plan,' said Port of Los Angeles Executive Director Geraldine Knatz in Wednesday's release.
   Opponents of the plan have said it could threaten thousands of local jobs, including drivers, and wind up costing taxpayers close to $800 million.
   The truck plan, announced by the ports in April and scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, seeks over the next five years to replace or retrofit more than 16,000 drayage trucks that service the ports daily. The replacements would be newer models that run up to 80 percent cleaner than older models.
   To accomplish this, the plan would force independent drivers to become employees of port-licensed truck companies. Drivers not employed with these port-licensed truck companies would be banned from the ports under the plan.
   Until they meet port-defined emission standards, port-licensed trucks would be charged fees to enter port facilities. The collected fees, as well as port and state monies, would be used to pay for a little more than half of the plan's estimated $1.8 billion cost. The ports are seeking state bond money to cover the rest. (See California Connection analysis.)
   Heavily supported by the Teamsters union, the ports' plan seeks to essentially re-regulate the local port trucking industry. While universally supportive of the emissions control aspects, the transportation industry has opposed the labor and financing components of the plan. The California Trucking Association, the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, the National Industrial Transportation League and others have vocally expressed opposition to the plan. Some industry groups have also indicated they may litigate the plan as a violation of the U.S. Constitution's Interstate Commerce and Export clauses.
   Wednesday's announcement also flies in the face of plan proponents who have been pushing for quick approval of the plan by the port commissions.
   In a letter to the two ports on Monday, the National Defense Resource Council and the Coalition for Clean Air warned the two ports' directors that 'This is not the time for half-measures and inaction ' The ports must stand firm on their path to a comprehensive solution to the port trucking issues.'
   Announcement of the delay came immediately after a third meeting of a port-sponsored task force on the plan. The task force — comprising representatives from environmental, labor, academia and industry picked by the mayors of Los Angeles and Long Beach — was created to counter criticism on the lack of stakeholder input into the plan. The makeup of the 24-member task force has itself been criticized as skewing heavily toward environmental and labor groups. Criticism has also been levied on the meetings for minimizing and ridiculing the views of task force industry representatives.
   The ports, which refer to task force members as 'stakeholders,' disagree.
   'Our stakeholder process hasn’t been a ‘window-dressing’ formality — feedback has been constructive and valuable in shaping this plan,' Knatz said.
   The public will have to wait until the plan is presented to the port commissions in several months to find out what feedback has been offered as the task force meetings have been held behind closed doors, unrecorded and with no notes being taken.
   The first task force meeting in April turned into a miasma of name-calling and obscenities when labor representatives attacked an industry-proposed alternative to the ports plan. The second meeting in May stayed on track but raised more questions than answers as port staff was unable to offer details on most aspects of the plan.
   Wednesday's meeting, previously set to be the last to focus on the plan, also revealed no new details on the plan, according to task force members.