Comment Log Display

April 20, 2015						
Ms. Mary Nichols
Chairman, California Air Resources Board
PO Box 2815
Sacramento, CA 95812

RE: INITIAL COMMENTS ON PATHWAYS DISCUSSION DRAFT

Dear Chairman Nichols:

		On behalf of BizFed - the Los Angeles County Business Federation,
a grassroots alliance of more than 130 top business organizations
representing nearly 268,000 businesses with more than 3 million
employees throughout Southern California, we appreciate the
opportunity to provide initial comments on the California Air
Resources Board’s (CARB) Sustainable Freight Pathways to Zero and
Near-Zero Emissions Discussion Draft (Pathways discussion draft).  
 

		BizFed members and coalition partners represent Southern
California's broader business community.  Our diverse group is
comprised of major regional business entities and associations,
whose members include large and small employers, minority business
owners, and job creators from a wide range of industries, including
goods movement and freight companies in the trucking, warehouse,
railroad, shipping, and distribution sectors. Through this letter,
BizFed members and partners wish to convey their shared support for
the thoughts and concerns expressed here related to the Pathways
discussion draft.

		We are happy to see that Staff recognizes that freight transport
“is a major economic engine for [the] State”, is a complex
interconnected “system of systems”, and that it “must remain
profitable in the face of increasing competition… .”  We look
forward to continuing to work with CARB and the other state
agencies, and we respectfully request consideration of the
following items:

1.	The discussion draft warrants appropriate public discussion and
process.  Our understanding is that the staff would like to
finalize the Pathways discussion draft shortly after the Board
hearing on April 23rd.  We encourage the Board to direct staff to,
in fact, instead discuss the draft with affected stakeholders
during workshops and, if requested, private meetings with affected
goods movement sectors before this discussion draft is finalized. 
We respect that the discussion draft is an initial step to the
development of the larger multi-agency and integrated Sustainable
Freight Strategy.  However, since language in the discussion draft
makes clear its uses and indicates the document will be used to
direct immediate and near term actions by CARB and that it will be
used to inform other ongoing discussions, including theSIP and the
next update of the Scoping Plan, the importance of this discussion
draft should not be understated.  Considering this, and the fact
that the Pathways discussion draft was only first released on April
3rd, it is reasonable to believe that additional time for
stakeholder and industry input is needed before finalizing the
document.

2.	Issue the Technology Assessments before proceeding further.  In
2014, CARB indicated in several venues that the technology
assessments would “lay the framework for identifying and
prioritizing the next steps, including accessing and leveraging
funding, near-term implementation strategies, and longer-term
actions that could be included as measures in upcoming SIPs”
(Scoping Plan Update, page 52, emphasis added).  Industry has
always supported this position, and we believe that CARB has not
laid the technical framework for either the Pathways discussion
draft or its upcoming SIP planning and Sustainable Freight efforts.
 We ask the Board to direct Staff to issue drafts of all of the
technology assessments before finalizing the Pathways document
and/or proceeding with SIP planning and Sustainable Freight
efforts. 

3.	Developing a truly effective integrated Sustainable Freight
Strategy requires a multi-agency approach and sound economic
analysis.  The Pathways discussion draft only represents CARB’s
vision, which is focused solely on reducing emissions and the
impacts of air pollution.  However, in the Pathways document CARB
itself recognizes that its vision is just one leg of the stool
needed for an integrated statewide Sustainable Freight Strategy. 
Input from other agencies such as the Energy Commission, CalSTA,
and Go-BIZ is equally important.  And, economic rigor will need to
be applied throughout the process of developing potential
strategies and solutions.  With this in mind, shipping, logistics,
and supply chain industry partners have been calling for CARB and
the other agencies to provide the resources necessary to conduct an
independent economic analysis.  Economic sustainability for the
goods movement industry must be a co-equal consideration in the
development and use of the Sustainable Freight Strategy if it is to
succeed and meet its goals.  We strongly urge CARB to proactively
enter into an agreement with GO-Biz, or some other competent
entity, to complete a full economic analysis.  Given the economic
importance of this sector to the state, it would seem this is a
logical and essential step before any emissions plans or strategies
impacting the sector could be considered feasible or appropriate.

4.	Concern with declining facility emissions caps and data
collection.  Since industry does not expect that zero or near-zero
emission technologies will be available in the near or intermediate
term, were that to be the case, it seems that the only way to
comply with a declining emissions cap would be to reduce business
activity and move fewer goods – and this is deeply concerning to
us.  It would seem that any approach based on capping or reducing
sector growth is inconsistent with the economic goals stated in the
discussion draft itself.  Further, given the importance of the
goods movement system to the state economy, and especially to the
Southern California regional economy and the fact that a declining
cap regulation could seriously impact many of the critically
important middle class jobs provided by this sector, any serious
consideration of this approach warrants thorough economic analysis
and careful consideration.

5.	More Public Resources and State Incentives Are Necessary.  The
CARB needs to provide new and robust resources for incentives to
achieve the sustainability goals contemplated in the discussion
draft.  These proposals exceed our current baseline private and
public funding profiles of the trade and freight sector
infrastructure.  As a result, these efforts will not be successful
without identifying new sources of public funding to help finance
these improvements.  Such state contributions and participation in
funding could likewise off-set the economic costs of
non-competitiveness in trade and hopefully avoid the creation of
substantial additional California-only environmental compliance
costs.  We are particularly concerned that CARB only proposed
revising the existing incentive programs and did not suggest AB 32
funding for this preeminent policy objective for California.  

In addition, currently, the only technologies that qualify for
incentive funding are those that are part of the staff
transformational view of the level of reductions needed.  However,
in many, if not most cases, these technologies are not available
today.  The Board should direct the staff to change the funding
criteria so that they can also invest in transitional technologies
which are available today, will provide real emissions and risk
reductions , and which will not impede the introduction of these
zero and near-zero technologies that are on or over the horizon. 
Such a portfolio approach to incentives closely parallels the
process the CARB has used in the implementation of the ZEV program
over the past 20 years.

6.	Change CARB’s inventory growth projection methodology.  CARB’s
current inventory and growth projections are both unrealistic and
inaccurate for several sectors.  For example, the projected number
of TEUs is grossly inaccurate (too high), the TEU growth rate is
not supported by the most recent decade of activity, and the data
from the last decade shows that there is no correlation between
ship emissions and number of TEUs.  Given some future year
locomotive and truck emissions are projected based on TEU growth,
CARB should amend its forecasts and, for some sectors, change its
inventory methodologies. 

7.	CARB should prepare written modeling protocols.  On page 15,
CARB states “[b]ecause ozone formation is a complex, non-linear
process, photochemical modeling of freight-related emissions is
needed in order to estimate the health impacts associated with
ozone exposure.  This modeling is planned for the summer of 2015,
and the health impacts of freight-related ozone exposure will be
estimated at that time.”  We recommend CARB prepare written
modeling protocols for this effort, engage with public
stakeholders, and receive and respond to comments.

8.	Land Use.  Land use planning and decision making in California
involves very elaborate governmental processes that are highly
evolved and leave important amounts and types of authority with the
cities and counties.  Local governments must comply with the
numerous state legislative provisions and rules of the state
agencies that are already amply involved in how development occurs
in California.  A major part of the general plan and development
process surrounds addressing any potential environmental impacts,
including air quality and climate change.  Thus, it is unclear, and
raises numerous concerns, as to why the Pathways document seems to
indicate the need for centralized mandates in the field of land
use.  It also implies an attempt to usurp authority away from local
control.

9.	The final Pathways Report should include a thorough discussion
of legal authorities.  The Pathways discussion draft recognizes
that CARB lacks authority to adopt and carry out several of the
listed measures.  It is not clear that CARB can or should obtain
additional legal authority.  It provides for several measures that
are contingent upon CARB's inability to obtain additional
authority.  However, the discussion draft omits any discussion of
the authorities of CARB, EPA, the air districts or any other
agencies that might play a role in developing and implementing the
Sustainable Freight Strategy.  The final Pathways report, as well
as all future Sustainable Freight Strategy reports, should include
a thorough discussion of legal authorities -- present and future --
contemplated by the plan.  CARB should provide a full opportunity
for public comment on the legal authority component and a chance
for the Board to review that important aspect of the plan.

10.	BizFed members and its coalition partners reserve all their
rights.  Our members and coalition partners have a vested interest
in environmental regulatory activity conducted by CARB, and we have
worked within the framework of the existing agency structure,
function and authority for many years.  It is complex and contains
a number of important checks and balances, such as the basic
protections of the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution and a
number of overriding federal laws aimed at protecting and enhancing
interstate and international trade and commerce.  Accordingly, we
reserve all of our rights and remedies with respect to the plan,
including our right to seek review in available state and federal
forums.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. 
BizFed, along with its members and coalition partners look forward
to working with CARB to further understand the details of the
options presented in the Pathways discussion draft.

Sincerely,