SECTION 1.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a) In 2013, the Legislature passed Chapter 223 of the Statutes of 2013, which required that the Transportation Agency develop a state freight plan that provides for governance of the immediate and long-range planning activities and capital investments of the state with respect to the movement of freight.
(b) In 2014, the final California Freight Mobility Plan was completed by the Transportation Agency and the Department of Transportation in consultation with the California Freight Advisory Committee, and submitted
to the Legislature, Governor, California Transportation Commission, Public Utilities Commission, and State Air Resources Board.
(c) In July 2015, Governor Brown issued Executive Order No. B-32-15, which directed the Secretary of Transportation, Secretary for Environmental Protection, and Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to lead other relevant state departments in developing an integrated action plan by July 2016 that “establishes clear targets to improve freight efficiency, transition to zero-emission technologies, and increase competitiveness of California’s freight system.” Participating state departments include the State Air Resources Board, Department of Transportation, State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, and the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development.
(d) In July 2016, the California Sustainable Freight Action Plan was completed in response to Executive Order No. B-32-15 and included recommendations on, amongst others, “[a] long-term 2050 Vision and Guiding Principles for California’s future freight transport system,” and “[t]argets for 2030 to guide the State toward meeting the Vision.”
(e) In May 2016, the State Air Resources Board released an updated mobile source strategy which demonstrated how the state can attain air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter by 2031, achieve greenhouse gas emission reduction targets of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, continue progress towards 80 percent reduction by 2050, reduce petroleum usage by 2030, and increase energy efficiency by 2030.
(f) In March 2017, the State Air Resources Board approved the state SIP strategy, which along with the Sustainable Freight Action Plan, Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy, and Climate Change Scoping Plan, serves as the basis for the implementation of the mobile source strategy. The State Air Resources Board has submitted the state SIP strategy to the USEPA for approval.
(g) The state, acting by and through the State Air Resources Board, currently controls emissions from cargo handling equipment (CHE) at California’s seaports and intermodal rail yards under the Regulation for Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards (Section 2479 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations). The regulation establishes best available control technology for new
and in-use CHE that operates at California’s ports and intermodal rail yards. The rules are applicable to all diesel-fueled equipment used at a California port or intermodal rail yard to lift or move containers, bulk or liquid cargo, or to perform routine or predictable maintenance and repair activities. Equipment that handles cargo containers includes yard trucks, top handlers, side handlers, reach stackers, forklifts, and rubber-tired gantry (RTG) cranes. Equipment that is used to handle bulk cargo includes dozers, excavators, loaders, and railcar movers. Forklifts, aerial lifts, and other types of equipment used in maintenance operations at ports and intermodal rail yards are also considered CHE for the purposes of that regulation.
(h) Efforts by the state, private industry, and seaports that have resulted in emissions reductions and
improvements in environmental quality at California’s seaports over the past decade have been substantial, significant, and unprecedented.
(i)At the Port of Los Angeles in 2016, when compared to 2005, the existing suite of regulations, incentives, and industry investments and initiatives have resulted in emissions reductions of 98 percent of oxides of sulfur (SOx) and 90 percent of diesel
particulate matter from ocean-going vessels, of 91 percent reductions of diesel particulate matter and 19 percent of carbon dioxide equivalent from cargo handling equipment, 97 percent reductions of diesel particulate matter and 90 percent of SOx from drayage trucks, and overall emissions reductions from all sources of oxides of nitrogen by 57 percent.
(j)At the Port of Oakland in 2015, when compared to 2005, efforts have resulted in emissions reductions of 98 percent of diesel particulate matter from drayage trucks, 90 percent reductions in SOx from ocean-going vessels, and 82
percent reductions in diesel particulate matter from cargo handling equipment.
(k)
(i) Improving the efficiency of California’s freight transport system is vital to the state’s economy. Traditional routes of moving freight face increasing competition from across the globe, and California’s system should anticipate and stay ahead of these changes. Currently, California is the nation’s largest gateway for international trade and domestic commerce, with an interconnected system of ports, railroads, highways, and roads that allow freight from around the world to move throughout the state and nation. This system is responsible for one-third of the
state’s economic product and jobs, with freight-dependent industries accounting for over seven hundred and forty billion dollars ($740,000,000,000) in gross domestic product and over five million jobs in 2014. However, California’s freight transport system is under pressure to serve our growing population and satisfy dynamic market demands, while other locations in the United States and across the world are fiercely competing for this economic activity.
(l)
(j) Maintaining the state’s cargo competitiveness is not just an imperative for the economic health of California but is necessary to
preserve reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases. Studies have demonstrated that when California loses marketshare and volumes of imports to other ports and gateways on the gulf and Atlantic coasts that greenhouse gas emissions associated with this diversion are substantial. Greenhouse gas emissions are on average 22 percent higher when cargo which originates in the Far East is diverted from the west coast ports in favor of east coast and gulf coast ports.