Additional Resources

Editorial: Debating Clean Diesels

Court ruling and LNG issues complicate, but won't stop, ports' cleanup.

Diesel pollution at the ports of L.A. and Long Beach is not going away easily, whether the source is by sea or by truck.

That became clear this week when shippers won a long court fight with regulators and environmental groups. As for the trucks, a diesel trade group challenged the ports' plan to switch part of the diesel fleet to liquefied natural gas.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the Pacific Merchants Shipping Association, which had opposed state regulations requiring low-sulfur fuel in auxiliary engines while ships are in port. The court found that California must get a federal waiver to set standards that are stricter than federal standards.

This means that the state Air Resources Board, South Coast Air Quality Management District and Natural Resources Defense Council, allied with the city of Long Beach, now must count on legislative relief or look to federal regulators for support.

As a practical matter, though, the situation isn't as bad as it seems. The PMSA encourages shippers to meet the low-sulfur fuel requirements voluntarily until the issue is resolved, and most ships are in compliance. What the PMSA really wants is an international standard, or at least a national one, rather than face the possibility of different rules in every port. That's fair, as long as the decision gets made quickly and standards are high.

The issue with truckers also is better than it seems. The Diesel Technology Forum objects to the Port of Long Beach's intention to replace at least half of the diesel trucks serving the port with trucks fueled by LNG. The plan is to invest $5 million in an LNG refueling facility, and to help underwrite the purchase of LNG-powered trucks at a cost of $210,000 each.

The Diesel Forum argues that this is a waste of money, since diesel trucks with the latest technology are as clean or cleaner than LNG trucks, cost only about $110,000, and don't require a specialized refueling facility. (According to Air Resources Board data, current-model diesels produce less pollution than LNG trucks in four out of five categories: particulate matter, carbon monoxide, methane and non-methane hydrocarbons. Nitrogen oxide emissions are slightly higher.)

The Diesel Forum has a strong case. The only problem is that AQMD regulators, despite the compelling data and the lack of LNG fueling facilities, opposes even clean-diesel technology. Their arguments seem thin, influenced perhaps by environmentalists who prefer LNG for the unrelated reason that switching to natural gas lessens the nation's reliance on Mideast oil.

From a consumer's viewpoint, it really doesn't matter who cleans up the air or how it gets done. What does matter is that ships should be required to burn low-sulfur fuel, and old diesel trucks must be replaced by less polluting models. Now.