Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking 

Including Summary of Comments and Agency Responses 

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS 

TO REDUCE EMISSIONS FROM DIESEL AUXILIARY ENGINES ON OCEAN-GOING 

VESSELS WHILE AT-BERTH AT A CALIFORNIA PORT 

 Public Hearing Date: December 6, 2007 

 Agenda Item Number: 07-12-06 
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 

Contents Page

I. General ................................................................................................................... 1

II. Modifications Made to the Original Proposal and Additional Documents 

Made Publicly Available .......................................................................................... 5

 A. Availability of Modified Text............................................................................... 6

 B. Nonsubstantive Changes ................................................................................ 12

III. Summary of Comments and Agency Responses to the Original Proposal............ 13

IV. Summary of Comments and Agency Responses to the Modified Text ................. 81

V. Corrections to Non-Cancer Health Impacts and Valuations and to 

References in the Technical Support Document ................................................ 102

List of Tables 

Table I: Comments Received During the 45-day Commnet Period......................... 14

Table II: Comments Received During the 15-day Comment Period......................... 81

Table III: Estimated Total Health Benefits Associated with Reductions in Hotelling 

Emissions from Container Ships, Passenger Ships, and Reefer Ships.... 103

Table IV: Undiscounted Unit Values for Health Effects ........................................... 104
1 

State of California 

AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking 

Including Summary of Comments and Agency Responses 

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS 

TO REDUCE EMISSIONS FROM DIESEL AUXILIARY ENGINES ON OCEAN-GOING 

VESSELS WHILE AT-BERTH AT A CALIFORNIA PORT 

Public Hearing Date: December 6, 2007 

Agenda Item No.: 07-12-06 

I. GENERAL 

In this rulemaking, the Air Resources Board (the Board or ARB) is adopting two identical 

regulations under different titles in the California Code of Regulations (CCR): 

1) section 2299.3, title 13, CCR; and 2) section 93118.3, title 17, CCR. Both sections 

will be referred to collectively hereafter as the “regulation.” 

The regulation will reduce the public’s exposure to air pollutants from ships docked or 

“hotelled” at California’s major ports. Specifically, the regulation will significantly reduce 

emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) from 

diesel-fueled auxiliary engines used aboard ocean-going ships while docked or at-berth 

at a California port. In addition, CO2 (a greenhouse gas) emissions from at-berth 

ocean-going vessels will also be reduced. The regulation supports the Board’s Risk 

Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines 

and Vehicles (approved in September 2000), the Goods Movement Emission Reduction 

Plan (2006), and the State’s Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (2006) targets for greenhouse gas 

reductions. 

This rulemaking was initiated by the October 19, 2007, publication of a notice for a 

public hearing on December 6, 2007 (“45-day Notice”). A “Staff Report: Initial 

Statement of Reasons” (Staff Report) and “Technical Support Document” (TSD) were 

also made available for public review and comment starting October 19, 2007. The 

Staff Report, which is incorporated by reference herein, describes the rationale for the 

proposal. Appendix A to the Staff Report contained the text of the proposed 

regulations, which adds a new section 2299.3 to title 13, CCR, and an identical new 

section 93118.3 to title 17, CCR. The TSD, which is incorporated by reference herein, 

describes the basis of the proposal in more detail. All of the documents referenced 

above were posted on October 19, 2007, to the ARB’s internet site for this rulemaking: 

http://arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/shorepwr07/shorepwr07.htm. 

At the December 6, 2007, hearing, the Board received written and oral comments on 

staff’s proposed regulation. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board adopted 

Resolution 07-57, in which it approved the adoption of the originally proposed regulation 
2 

with suggested modifications discussed at the hearing. ARB staff suggested the 

modifications in response to public comment. The modifications were set forth in a 

five-page document entitled “Staff’s Suggested Modifications to the Original Proposal,’” 

distributed at the hearing, and included as Attachment B to the Resolution. In 

accordance with section 11346.8 of the Government Code, the Board directed the 

Executive Officer to incorporate the modifications into the proposed regulatory text and 

to make such modifications available for a supplemental comment period of at least 

15 days. The Executive Officer was then directed either to adopt the regulations with 

such additional modifications as may be appropriate in light of the comments received, 

or to present the regulations to the Board for further consideration if warranted in light of 

the comments. 

The text of the modifications to the originally proposed regulation, the incorporated 

documents, and additional supporting documents were made available for a 

supplemental 15-day comment period by issuance of a “Notice of Public Availability of 

Modified Text and Availability of Additional Documents” (“15-day Notice”). The 15-day 

Notice with four attachments were mailed on August 22, 2008, to all parties identified in 

section 44(a), title 1, CCR, and to other persons generally interested in the ARB’s 

rulemaking concerning ocean-going vessels. These four attachments included a copy 

of Resolution 07-57 with Attachment B entitled “Staff's Suggested Modifications to the 

Original Proposed Regulation Order,” the revised regulatory language, and two 

documents that staff added to the rulemaking record. All documents were also 

published on August 22, 2008, on ARB’s website. An email message announcing and 

linking to this posting was transmitted to the more than 2,000 parties that have 

subscribed to ARB’s “shorepower” list serve for notification of postings pertaining to 

emissions from docked ocean-going vessels. 

The 15-day Notice gave the name, telephone, and fax number of the ARB contact 

person from whom interested parties could obtain the complete texts of the additional 

incorporated documents and the modifications to the original proposal, with all of the 

modifications clearly indicated. The deadline for submittal of comments on the staff’s 

suggested modifications was September 8, 2008. 

Four written comments were received during the supplemental 15-day comment period. 

Staff did not make additional modifications in response to those comments. 

After considering the comments, the Executive Officer issued Executive Order 

R-08-013, adopting new section 2299.3 to title 13, CCR, and new section 93118.3 to 

title17, CCR, and adopting the incorporated documents. 

This Final Statement of Reasons (FSOR) updates the Staff Report by identifying and 

providing the rationale for the modifications made to the originally proposed regulatory 

text as a result of public comment and staff analysis after the Staff Report was issued. 

This FSOR also summarizes written and oral comments the Board received on the 

proposed regulatory text during the formal rulemaking process and the ARB’s 

responses to those comments. 
3 

Documents Incorporated by Reference. 

The following documents are incorporated by reference in the regulation: 

(1) “Verification Procedure, Warranty and In-Use Compliance Requirements for In-Use 

Strategies to Control Emissions from Diesel Engines," 13 CCR 2700 et seq.; 

(2) 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 94, “Control of Emissions from Marine 

Compression-Ignition Engines”; (3) Annex VI of the 1973 International Convention for 

the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating 

thereto (MARPOL 73/78); (4) ARB Method 100 – Procedures for Continuous Gaseous 

Emission Stack Sampling,” 17 CCR 94114; (5) International Standard 

ISO 8178-1(E):1996, “Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines – Exhaust Emission 

Measurement – Part 1: Test-Bed Measurement of Gaseous and Particulate Exhaust 

Emissions”; (6) International Standard ISO 8178-2(E):1996, “Reciprocating Internal 

Combustion Engines – Exhaust Emission Measurement – Part 2: Measurement of 

Gaseous and Particulate Exhaust Emissions at Site”; (7) International Standard 

ISO 8178-4(E):1996, “Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines – Exhaust Emission 

Measurement – Part 4: Test Cycles for Different Engine Applications”; (8) Bay Area Air 

Quality Management District Source Test Procedure ST-1B, “Ammonia Integrated 

Sampling,” dated January 1982; (9) International Standard ISO 8754:2003(E), 

“Petroleum Products – Determination of Sulfur Content – Energy-Dispersive X-Ray 

Fluorescence Spectrometry,” Second Edition, 2003-07-15; and (10) International 

Standard ISO 8217, “Specifications of Marine Fuels Requirements for Marine Residual 

Fuels,” (as revised in 2005). 

One document has been omitted from the original list of incorporated-by-reference 

documents listed in the Informative Digest section of the 45-day Notice. The Bureau of 

Customs and Border Protection’s Form 1300 has been eliminated because the 

requirement for submitting these forms to the ARB was removed in staff’s modifications 

to the original proposal. The ISO marine fuel specification listed in (10) above has been 

added to the original list because it was referenced in definitions added to the regulation 

in staff’s modifications to the original proposal. 

The 10 documents listed above are readily available from the ARB upon request and 

were made available in the context of this rulemaking in the manner specified in 

Government Code section 11346.5(b). The documents are incorporated by reference 

because it would be cumbersome, unduly expensive, and otherwise impractical to print 

them in the CCR. Existing ARB administrative practice has been to have specifications, 

test procedures, and similar documents incorporated by reference rather than printed in 

the CCR because these specifications and test procedures are highly technical and 

complex. They include “nuts and bolts” engineering protocols and laboratory practices 

and have a very limited audience. Because the ARB has never printed complete test 

procedures and similar documents in the CCR, the directly affected public is 

accustomed to the incorporation format utilized therein. These test procedures and 

similar documents as a whole are extensive, and it would be both cumbersome and 

expensive to print these lengthy, technically complex procedures for a limited audience 
4 

in the CCR. In addition, printing portions of the test procedures that are incorporated by 

reference would be unnecessarily confusing to the affected public. 

Fiscal Impacts 

Pursuant to Government Code sections 11346.5(a)(5) and 11346.5(a)(6), the Executive 

Officer has determined that the regulatory action will create costs to some local 

agencies. The governmental agencies affected by the proposed regulation are the port 

authorities, which are departments under the applicable cities. The ports affected by 

the proposed regulation are the Ports of Hueneme, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, 

San Diego, and San Francisco. Also affected is the cruise terminal at the Port of 

Long Beach which is owned by the City of Long Beach. In general, the tenants operate 

the terminals, and the port may make major infrastructure improvements, the costs for 

which may be recovered from the tenants through the lease agreements. The other 

ports own and manage the operation of the port, so these ports have other fee 

mechanisms to recover their capital investments. 

The total cost expected to be expended by the port authorities to add shore-power 

equipment to their facilities ranges between $4 million to $86 million for the affected 

ports. The fiscal impact is defined as the costs incurred to the local agencies in the 

three fiscal years starting with the 2008/2009 fiscal year. Staff anticipates that the port 

authorities would begin to make payments during fiscal years 2008/2009, 2009/2010, 

and 2010/2011 for the necessary shore-power equipment to satisfy the 2014 milestone. 

The fiscal costs range from $1 million to $12 million for this three year period. 

No State agencies will be affected by the proposed regulation as a result of a State 

agency operating an ocean-going ship. However, the ARB will need additional 

resources to adequately enforce the provisions of the regulation. ARB's Fiscal Year 

(FY) 2008-2009 budget includes two staff positions to perform compliance outreach and 

other enforcement efforts for this and several other newly adopted regulations that 

target emissions from port and other goods-movement related activities. These two 

positions are to be funded at $140,000 per position per year or $280,000 annually. Staff 

estimates that the workload for performing the necessary outreach and other 

enforcement activities for this regulation specifically will require 1/7 of each PY or 

2/7 PY total ($40,000). 

 Consideration of Alternatives 

The proposed regulation was the subject of discussions involving ARB staff, local air 

districts, affected shipping companies, terminal operators, ports and others. A 

discussion of two alternatives to the regulatory proposal is found in Analysis of 

Alternative Regulatory Approaches, Section I, Chapter X (pp. X-24 through X-25) of the 

Technical Support Document. ARB staff recommended against both alternatives. 
5 

The two alternative regulatory approaches were: 1) targeting the highest-emitting ships 

to obtain the necessary reductions, or 2) using best available control technology (BACT) 

on auxiliary engines while the ship is hotelling. 

ARB originally considered approach 1 before choosing the “visits or emissions 

reduction” approach contained in the proposed regulation. Approach 1 would “tag” the 

ships that make the most visits to specific ports and make them use shore power or an 

equivalent control technology to reduce hotelling emissions. For example, a 

requirement under this regulatory approach might state “container ships making more 

than four visits to a California port in 2014 must turn off their engines or use an 

alternative control technology.” ARB estimated that this regulatory approach would be 

as effective as the proposed regulation, but abandoned this approach because of the 

complexity and difficulty of tracking the ships that would be required to reduce 

emissions. Many of these ships could be repositioned elsewhere, while other ships 

would replace them in California service, creating excessive recordkeeping 

requirements and practical enforcement challenges. 

The second alternative that ARB staff considered is requiring ship companies to install 

BACT on their auxiliary engines. For the purpose of determining a potential costeffectiveness of this approach, staff chose selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for NOx 

emissions reductions and diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) for diesel PM emissions 

reductions. Staff estimated the average cost-effectiveness for NOx reductions using 

SCR to range from $11,000 to $21,000 per ton reduced, which may be considered 

comparable to the $12,800 per ton achieved by the proposed regulation. The costeffectiveness for diesel PM reductions using this approach, estimated at $1.7 million per 

ton, is more than twice as high as the $690,000 per ton of diesel PM emissions 

achieved with the proposed regulation. Considering the unproven application of these 

technologies for marine engines, fewer total emissions reductions, and much higher 

cost-effective values for diesel PM emissions reductions, staff rejected this alternative 

regulatory approach. 

The Board has determined that no other alternatives considered by the agency or that 

have otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the agency would be 

more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the regulatory action was proposed 

or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the 

action taken by the Board. 

II. MODIFICATIONS MADE TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL AND ADDITIONAL 

DOCUMENTS MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 

Various modifications were made to the original proposal to address comments 

received during the 45-day public comment period and to clarify the regulatory 

language. These modifications are described below and include staff-proposed 

modifications that the Board approved on December 6, 2007, changes that the Board 

directed staff to make, and subsequent modifications made in response to public 

comments and to improve the proposed regulation’s clarity. The 15-day Notice, 
6 

together with a copy of the proposed regulation with changes indicated, was posted on 

August 22, 2008, for a period of public review and comment that ended on 

September 8, 2008. Notification was sent to persons who had expressed an interest in 

the regulation during the course of rule development and review, including all individuals 

described in subsections (a)(1) through (a)(4) of section 44, Title 1, CCR. By these 

actions, the modified regulations were made available to the public for a supplemental 

comment period pursuant to Government Code section 11346.8. ARB not make 

additional substantive changes in response to public comments received but, certain 

nonsubstantive changes were subsequently made and are detailed in subsection B 

below. 

 A. Availability of Modified Text 

The following is a description of the substantive modifications provided for public 

comment from August 22, 2008 through September 8, 2008, arranged by section 

number. Identical modifications were made to proposed section 2299.3, title 13, CCR, 

and to the proposed Airborne Toxic Control Measure in section 93118.3, title 17, CCR. 

All references below to section 2299.3 and section 93118.3 are to the indicated sections 

in title 13 and 17, CCR, respectively

Applicability and General Exemptions: Subsections 2299.3(b) and 93118.3(b) 

 

Staff moved the fleet de minimis vessel visit criteria, originally in section (d)(1)(D), to the 

general exemption section of the regulation, because this was a more logical location 

for the language. 

Container-ship fleets making fewer than 25 visits to a California port, refrigerated-cargoship fleets making fewer than 25 visits to a port, and passenger-ship fleets making 

fewer than five visits to a port are exempt from the requirements of the regulation. At 

the Board hearing, the Board directed staff to change the de minimis fleet visit 

requirements from a port-visit basis to a statewide-visit basis, depending on staff’s 

economic analysis of such a modification. Staff performed an economic analysis of 

such a change to the regulation and presented the results in Attachment III to the 

15-day Notice. Staff concluded the ships that would be affected are infrequent visitors 

to California, the estimated emission reduction benefits would be small, and the 

cost-effectiveness of amending the de minimis visit criteria on a statewide basis would 

be substantial. Consequently, staff kept the original de minimis fleet visit criteria that 

are based on port visits. 

Definitions: Subsection 2299.3(c) and 93118.3(c) 

Eight definitions were modified, three were deleted, and five were added to the 

definitions section of the regulation. 

 
7 

Modified Definitions

The term “marine diesel fuel” has been changed to “marine gas oil or marine diesel oil” 

in the definition of “baseline fleet emissions” and “post-baseline fleet emissions” to be 

consistent with the emission rates specified in section (e)(3). Additional changes were 

made to the definition of “post-baseline fleet emissions” to clarify that various control 

techniques can be used to reduce fleet emissions in the equivalent emissions reduction 

compliance option. 

The definition of “emergency event” has been modified to include a more 

comprehensive list of events where the utility may not be able to provide power to the 

port. The definition of “fleet” has been modified to clarify that a fleet is based on one 

type of vessel and includes both owned and chartered vessels and that the master’s 

control of a vessel does not constitute “direct control,” as that term pertains to fleet 

operators. The definition of “person” has been modified to clarify the inclusion of 

consortiums and other business relationships that are found in the shipping industry. 

The definitions for “terminal” and “terminal operator” have been modified to clarify the 

intent that affected terminals should also include facilities used for loading and 

unloading of passengers, as passenger vessels are affected by the regulation. A 

clerical correction was made to the definition of “utility” to correct the Public Resources 

Code section number referenced in this definition. The definition of “visit” has been 

modified to clarify that when a vessel makes separate and sequential visits to berths at 

a port within a specified amount of time, the fleet can count these types of visits as one 

visit for purposes of calculating the number of visits the fleet’s vessels made to the port. 

 Deleted Definitions 

Definitions for “IMO,” “Landlord Port,” and “Operate an Auxiliary Diesel Engine” were 

deleted from the regulation. These terms are not located in the regulation, and are, 

therefore, not necessary to define. 

Added Definitions

A definition has been added for “baseline fleet power generation” because this term is 

used in the new reduced onboard power generation calculation requirements. A 

definition of “charter agreement” has been added because this term is now used in the 

definition of “fleet.” A definition of “marine diesel oil” has been added because this term 

is now used in the emission rates specified in section (e)(3). A definition of “marine gas 

oil” has been added because this term is used in the emission rates specified in section 

(e)(3). A definition of “regulated California waters” has been added because the term is 

used in the exemption to the regulation for vessels passing through these waters 

without stopping at a California port (i.e., “innocent passage”). 
8 

Vessel In-Use Operational Requirements: Subsection 2299.3(d) and 93118.3(d) 

 

Reduced Onboard Power Generation Option (d)(1): 

This subsection was modified so that at-berth operational requirements for auxiliary 

engines are based on a combination of limiting engine use during a specific percentage 

of a fleet’s vessel visits, and reducing power generation from the fleet’s vessels’ 

auxiliary engines by the same percentage. Staff added this second requirement 

because onboard electricity generation is directly related to emissions and is, therefore, 

a better measure of emissions reduction than visits alone. Staff believes that requiring 

a fleet to reduce the onboard power generated while at berth, in combination with 

requiring auxiliary engines to be shut down for a specific number of vessel visits, will 

result in emission reductions that are more aligned with staff’s emission reduction 

targets. Staff renamed this compliance option the “reduced onboard power generation 

option.” 

Staff made numerous changes to section d(1) to address the new operational 

requirements and to restructure some requirements for clarity. The original 

requirements for 2014 and 2020 have been modified to account for the new onboard 

power reduction requirement and new requirements for 2017 have been added to 

assure a reasonable rate of progress between the 2014 and 2020 requirements. The 

three-hour or five-hour auxiliary engine use limitations requirements that were in the 

original 2014 and 2020 requirements have been moved to a new area within this section 

to reduce redundancy. The emergency event and federal inspection delay exemptions 

to the three-hour or five-hour auxiliary engine use limitations that were in section (e) of 

the original regulation have been moved to this section because this is now a more 

logical location for these requirements. Based on the Board’s directive, staff added 

language to this section to clarify that when a vessel visit meets the emergency event 

exemption criteria when intending to connect to grid-based shore power, that visit will be 

counted as a “shore-power visit” but the emissions from that visit will be excluded from 

the fleet’s onboard power reduction requirements. The same treatment will apply to 

visits meeting the federal inspection delay exemption. Staff also clarified in this section 

that a shore-power-equipped ship is required to use shore power whenever it visits a 

berth equipped with compatible shore power except when the shore-power-equipped 

berth at the terminal is already occupied with a vessel receiving shore power, or when 

shore power equipment on a vessel fails and the master of the ship is unable to repair it 

during the visit. 

Equivalent Emissions Reduction Option (d)(2): 

In response to public comments, staff consolidating the three emission reduction 

options to one technology-neutral compliance option and schedule to streamline the 

emission-reduction option and to provide more flexibility to affected fleets. Staff 

renamed this option the “equivalent emissions reduction option.” Fleets choosing the 

equivalent emissions reduction option will now have only one compliance schedule and 

can achieve the percent emission reductions by choosing one or more control 
9 

techniques, including grid-based shore power, non-grid-based shore power (distributed 

generation), and alternative ship-side or shore-side control technologies. Based on the 

Board’s directive, staff added language to this section to clarify that the at-berth 

emissions from a vessel that experienced an emergency event when it intended to use 

grid-based shore power as a control technique can be excluded from the fleet’s baseline 

and post-baseline emissions calculations. Staff added incentives for early reduction 

efforts by fleets, by allowing them to accumulate and use emission credits to satisfy 

future emission reduction requirements for early or excess reductions achieved under 

this option. Staff also added a limit for ammonia slip when Selective Catalytic 

Reduction (SCR) is used as an onboard alternative emissions control technology to be 

consistent with the requirement already in the regulation for SCR used with non-grid 

shore power equipment, (d)(2)(E)4. 

Limitation on Changing Compliance Options (d)(3): 

Staff added provisions to limit the conditions under which a fleet can switch from the 

reduced onboard power generation option to the equivalent emissions reduction option. 

The new language is intended to prevent fleets from circumventing the earlier emissions 

reduction targets of the equivalent emissions reduction option by initially choosing the 

reduced onboard power generation option, then subsequently switching to the 

equivalent emissions reduction option. 

Calculations for Power Reductions and Emissions Reductions: Subsections 

2299.3(e) and 93118.3(e) 

 

Reduced Onboard Power Generation Calculations (e)(1): 

Staff added procedures for a fleet to follow to calculate the percent reduction of its 

vessels’ at-berth auxiliary engine power generation to demonstrate compliance with the 

new power reduction requirement in this option. The default power loads by ship 

category and the measured power requirements that were originally in the emission 

reduction calculations section have been moved to this section because the information 

will now be needed in the power reduction calculations. Staff also clarified that onboard 

power generated during visits experiencing an emergency event or federal agency 

delay exemption to the three- or five-hour engine limitation shall be excluded from the 

fleet’s power reduction calculations as previously discussed in changes to section 

(d)(1). 

 

Equivalent Emissions Reduction Calculations (e)(2): 

Staff added language to this section to clarify that the at-berth emissions from a vessel 

that experienced an emergency event when it intended to use grid-based shore power 

as a control technique, can be excluded from the fleet’s baseline and post-baseline 

emissions calculations as previously discussed in changes to section (d)(2). To 

encourage early reduction efforts, staff added provisions for fleets to obtain fleet 

emission credits (FEC) for early and excess emission reductions that can be applied 
10 

toward the fleet’s future compliance requirements. Staff has clarified the default 

emission rates for diesel PM to address the fact that at-berth auxiliary engines can 

operate on marine gas oil fuel and marine diesel oil fuel. The default power 

requirements by vessel category and measured power requirements have been 

removed from this section because they are now included in the reduced onboard 

power generation calculations as discussed above. In response to public comment, 

staff added language to allow the use of alternative test methods to those specified in 

the regulation for determining engine emission rates. Finally, language has been added 

to clarify that the Executive Officer may request periodic testing of distributed generation 

equipment used to provide non-grid shore power to a vessel. 

Terminal Plan Requirements: Subsections 2299.3(f) and 93118.3(f) 

 

Staff modified the terminal plan requirements for two purposes: 1) to align with the new 

reduced onboard power generation and equivalent emissions reduction options; and 

2) to include more criteria for terminal operators to follow when developing the plan. 

Staff revised Table 2 to reflect the fleets’ new compliance options and dates. The plan 

requirements are now specific to either the “reduced onboard power generation option” 

or the “equivalent emissions reduction option.” A schedule has been added for 

reviewing and approving terminal plans. 

The reduced onboard power generation option plan requirements, (f)(2), expand upon 

the requirements in the original grid-based shore power option, which includes a 

discussion of modifications to the terminal infrastructure, the port infrastructure, and the 

utility infrastructure that are needed to allow affected fleets to satisfy requirements in 

(d)(1). Additional discussion must now be included on ship activity at the terminal and 

projected power demands. The terminal plan must also include a discussion of 

currently available power at the terminal. In addition, it must provide a schedule for 

each activity needed to implement any necessary improvements to the terminal, port, or 

utility infrastructure to supply any additional power that will be needed at the terminal by 

the 2014, 2017 and 2020 compliance dates. 

The equivalent emissions reduction option plan, (f)(3), must now include information on 

ship activity at the terminal and a description of, and implementation schedule for, the 

control techniques that will be used to reduce the at-berth emissions of affected fleets 

so that the fleets can satisfy the requirements in (d)(2) by the 2010, 2012, 2014, 2017, 

and 2020 compliance dates. 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements: Subsection 2299.3(g) and 

93118.3(g) 

The vessel plan, annual statement of compliance, and recordkeeping requirements 

have been modified to align with the new provisions in the reduced onboard power 

generation and equivalent emissions reduction options. Staff also modified this section 
11 

to clarify some requirements. A discussion of the reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements for each compliance option follows: 

Reduced Onboard Power Generation Option (g)(1): 

Staff has clarified that a vessel fleet plan is required for each California port that is 

visited by the fleet, where the fleet’s visits do not fall below the de minimis fleet visit 

exemptions specified in (b)(3)(E), to conform the plan submittal dates to the new 

compliance dates in this option, and to provide more detail on the information to be 

included in the initial plans and updates. This detailed information will better assist ARB 

staff in determining the fleet’s ability to meet the requirements for the applicable 

compliance dates. 

Staff has clarified that the annual statement of compliance must demonstrate that the 

fleet is in compliance with the regulatory requirements at each California port visited by 

the fleet. Additional information on each vessel in the fleet is now required in the annual 

statement to assist ARB staff with determining the fleet’s compliance with the new 

provisions in the reduced onboard power option. 

Staff made a number of changes to the recordkeeping section to clarify the 

requirements, eliminate submittal of unnecessary information, and to ensure ARB staff 

has the necessary information to verify emergency event and federal agency delay 

exemptions to the three-hour or five-hour engine use limitations, and to verify onboard 

shore-power equipment failures. 

Equivalent Emissions Reduction Option (g)(2): 

Staff modified the vessel plan requirements to clarify that a vessel fleet plan is required 

for each California port that is visited by the fleet, where the fleet’s visits do not fall 

below the de minimis fleet visit exemptions specified in (b)(3)(E), to conform the plan 

submittal dates to the new compliance dates in this option, and to provide more detail 

on the information to be included in the initial plans and updates. This detailed 

information will better assist ARB staff in determining the fleet’s ability to meet the 

requirements for the applicable compliance dates. In addition, staff added language to 

ensure that fleets switching from the reduced onboard power compliance option to the 

equivalent emissions reduction option submit an update vessel plan that complies with 

the requirements in this section. 

Staff conformed the initial submittal date for the annual statements of compliance to the 

new compliance dates in this option, clarified that the annual statement of compliance 

must demonstrate that the fleet is in compliance with the emission reduction 

requirements at each California port it visits, and clarified the compliance period for the 

baseline and post-baseline emission calculations. To better assist ARB staff with 

determining the fleet’s compliance with the equivalent emissions reduction option, 

specific information is now required for each vessel in the fleet. In addition, the fleet 
12 

must indicate if fleet emission credits (FEC) will be used to meet the applicable 

reduction requirements. 

Staff made a number of changes to the recordkeeping requirements to clarify the 

requirements, eliminate submittal of unnecessary information, and to ensure ARB staff 

has the necessary information to verify emergency events. 

Violations: Subsections 2299.3(h) and 93118.3(h) 

Staff added formulas for determining the number of violations within the applicable 

compliance period when a fleet or ship is found to be out of compliance. Adding the 

formulas provided a more reasonable approach to determining violations to the 

regulation requirements than the assumption that the fleet was out of compliance every 

day within the compliance period. Formulas were developed for five noncompliance 

scenarios: fleets failing to achieve the baseline power reduction requirements; fleets 

failing to achieve the limited engine use visits percentages; fleets failing to achieve both 

of these requirements; fleets failing to achieve the applicable emission reduction 

percentages; and shore-power equipped ships failing to use shore power during a visit 

to a berth that had compatible shore power. 

Supporting Documents and Information 

In accordance with Government Code section 11347.1, the following documents were 

added to the rulemaking record with public notification provided in the 

15-Day Notice:

• Staff’s Cost Analysis and Conclusions for Potentially Modifying the De Minimis 

Fleet Visits Criteria from an Individual Port Basis to a Statewide Basis. 

• Examples of Calculating Number of Violations. 

Other Changes in Modified Text 

In addition, certain subsections and paragraphs were rearranged and other 

minor modifications were made throughout the regulatory text to improve clarity; to 

correct spelling, typographical errors, punctuation, and grammar; to make numbering 

adjustments; and to correct citations and references. These modifications were 

included in the strikeout/underline version of the regulatory text that was provided for 

public comment with the 15-day Notice. 

 B. Nonsubstantive Changes 

ARB has made minor nonsubstantive changes to the final regulation order to correct 

punctuation, typographical errors, to make numbering adjustments, and to improve 

accuracy and clarity. The changes made do not materially alter any requirement, right, 
13 

responsibility, condition, prescription, or other regulatory element of any California Code 

of Regulations provisions. 

III. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES TO THE ORIGINAL 

PROPOSAL 

The Board received numerous written and oral comments during the 45-day rulemaking 

comment period (October 19, 2007 to December 6, 2007). A list of commenters is set 

forth in Table I below, identifying the date and form of all comments that were timely 

submitted. Following the list is a summary of each objection or recommendation made 

regarding the proposed action, together with an explanation of how the proposed action 

has been changed to accommodate the objection or recommendation, or the reasons 

for making no change. The comments have been grouped by topic. Comments were 

received from government agencies, ports, industry representatives, individuals, and 

environmental organizations supporting and objecting to specific terms of the proposed 

regulation. Suggestions received ranged from not adopting a regulation to control atberth emissions from ocean-going vessels to strengthening and accelerating the 

requirements in the regulation. Many commenters expressed support of ARB adopting 

a regulation to control at-berth emissions from ocean-going vessels, but also wanted 

specific changes to the requirements in the regulation. ARB did receive seven 

individual support letters and 75 identical form letters solely expressing support for the 

regulation. For brevity, the form letters are not included in Table I.
14 

Table I: Comments Received During the 45-day Comment Period 

Abbreviation Commenter

ALA Bonnie Holmes-Gen 

American Lung Association of California 

Oral testimony: December 6, 2007 

ALLEN Gina Allen 

Written testimony: November 12, 2007 

ANDERSON Stephen and Betty Anderson 

Written testimony: December 3, 2007 

AZA Amy Zimmerman 

Amy Zimmerman & Associates 

Written testimony: November 9, 2007 

BAAQMD1 Jack Broadbent 

Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

Written testimony: October 10, 2007 

BAAQMD2 Jack Broadbent 

Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

Written testimony: November 16, 2007 

BCLAC1 Enrique Chiock 

Breathe California of Los Angeles County 

Written testimony: October 26, 2007 

BCLAC2 Nicole Shahenian 

Breathe California of Los Angeles County 

Oral testimony: December 6, 2007 

CAL1 Robert Cross 

CleanAir Logix 

Written testimony: December 3, 2007 

CAL2 Eric Witten 

CleanAir Logix 

Oral testimony: December 6, 2007 

CAMP Scott Johns 

Clean Air Marine Power 

Oral testimony: December 6, 2007 

CCA Tim Carmichael 

Coalition for Clean Air 

Oral testimony: December 6, 2007 

CCP Rupal Patel 

Communities for Clean Ports 

Oral testimony: December 6, 2007 

CLB1 Bonnie Lowenthal 

Vice Mayor 

City of Long Beach 

Written testimony: December 5, 2007 
15 

CLB2 Rhey Lee 

Office of Vice Mayor Bonnie Lowenthal 

City of Long Beach 

Oral testimony: December 6, 2007 

CLIA Terry Dale 

Cruise Lines International Association 

Written testimony: December 4, 2007 

CMTA Joseph Lyons 

California Manufacturers and Technology Association

AB 32 Implementation Group 

Oral testimony: December 6, 2007 

CSB John Larson 

City of Seal Beach 

Written testimony: November 5, 2007 

DW Bob Hoffman 

Dock Watts 

Oral testimony: December 6, 2007 

EHC Joy Williams 

Environmental Health Coalition 

Oral testimony: December 6, 2007 

ENVORG1 Jane Williams 

 California Communities Against Toxics 

Angela Johnson Meszaros 

 California Environmental Rights Alliance 

Robina Suwal 

 California Safe Schools 

Jesse Marquez 

 Coalition for a Safe Environment 

Joel Bush 

 Communities for Clean Ports 

Cynthia Babich 

 Del Amo Action Committee 

Elina Green 

 Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma 

Martha Dina Arguello 

 Physicians for Social Responsibility 

Shabaka Heru 

 Society for Positive Action 

Written testimony: October 19, 2007 

ENVORG2 Tom Plenys 

 Coalition for Clean Air 

Diane Bailey 

 Natural Resources Defense Council 

Bonnie Holmes-Gen 

 American Lung Association of California 

Jesse N. Marquez 
16 

 Coalition for a Safe Environment 

Joel Bush 

 Communities for Clean Ports 

Elina Green 

 Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma 

Tina Andolina 

 Planning and Conservation League 

Bill Magavern 

 Sierra Club California 

Don Anair 

 Union of Concerned Scientists 

Written testimony: October 4, 2007 

ENVORG3 Candice Kim 

 Coalition for Clean Air 

Diane Bailey 

 Natural Resources Defense Council 

Bonnie Holmes-Gen 

 American Lung Association of California 

Jesse Marquez 

 Coalition for a Safe Environment 

Joel Bush 

 Communities for Clean Ports 

Angelo Logan 

 East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice 

Joy Williams 

 Environmental Health Coalition 

John Kaltenstein 

 Friends of the Earth 

Elina Green 

 Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma 

Joel Ervice 

 Regional Asthma Management and Prevention 

 Initiative Statewide 

Bill Magavern 

 Sierra Club California 

Don Anair 

 Union of Concerned Scientists 

Written testimony: December 5, 2007 

ERM Larry Hottenstein 

ERM 

Written testimony: December 5, 2007 

FOE1 Teri Shore 

Friends of the Earth 

Written testimony: October 10, 2007 
17 

FOE2 John Kaltenstein 

Friends of the Earth 

Oral testimony: December 6, 2007 

GARDNER Valerie Gardner 

Written testimony: December 3, 2007 

IBEW Kevin Norton 

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 

Oral testimony: December 6, 2007 

LAPEER Georgianna La Peer 

Written testimony: November 27, 2007 

MAERSK Jim Flanagan 

Maersk Inc. 

Oral testimony: December 6, 2007 

NRDC Diane Bailey 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Oral testimony: December 6, 2007 

OMCC Joseph Haraburda 

Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce 

Written testimony: October 16, 2007 

PERATA Senator Don Perata 

California State Senate 

Written testimony: November 30, 2007 

PGE1 Mark Krausse 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

Written testimony: October 16, 2007 

PGE2 Wendy Mitchen 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

Oral testimony: December 6, 2007 

PMSA1 John McLaurin 

Pacific Merchant Shipping Association 

Written testimony: December 3, 2007 

PMSA2 T.L. Garrett 

Pacific Merchant Shipping Association 

Oral testimony: December 6, 2007 

POAKLAND1 Omar Benjamin 

Port of Oakland 

Written testimony: October 15, 2007 

POAKLAND2 Matt Davis 

Port of Oakland 

Oral testimony: December 6, 2007 

POLA Ralph Appy 

Port of Los Angeles 

Written testimony: December 6, 2007 

POLB1 Thomas Jelenic 

Port of Long Beach 

Oral testimony: December 6, 2007 
18 

POLB2 Robert Kanter 

Port of Long Beach 

Written testimony: December 6, 2007 

SCAQMD1 Barry Wallerstein 

South Coast Air Quality Management District 

Written testimony: December 5, 2007 

SCAQMD2 Henry Hogo 

South Coast Air Quality Management District 

Oral and Written testimony: December 6, 2007 

SES Seiichi Tsurumi 

Sound Energy Solutions 

Written and Oral testimony: December 6, 2007 

TILLMAN Cheryl Tillman 

Written testimony: November 12, 2007 

UCS Don Anair 

Union of Concerned Scientists 

Oral testimony: December 6, 2007 

WOEIP James Fine 

Brian Beveridge 

West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project 

Written testimony: November 7, 2007 
19 

A. Support for the Regulation 

1. Comment: In support of regulation as proposed. (CAL2, CLB1, CLB2, CAMP, 

CSB, IBEW, PGE2) 

Response: Duly noted and appreciated. 

B. Legal Authority 

2. Comment: The Board’s ability to regulate marine sources, derived from Health 

& Safety Code Sections 43013, 43018, and 39666, explicitly authorizes ARB to 

regulate marine sources only to the extent that it is not preempted by federal law. 

The regulation would require many vessels to retrofit or perform modifications to 

conform to its standards or to conform to an Emission Reduction Option under 

this rule. The requirements for vessels to retrofit or perform modifications to their 

ships and engines are beyond the authority of the State and are facially 

inconsistent with any assertion that this regulation presents a simple “in-use” 

regulation. Moreover, such retrofits and or modifications can affect the stability, 

structural integrity and general safety of the ship. Any imposed requirements or 

changes that can result in such impacts are the purview of the U.S. Coast Guard 

and the classification societies as designated by a ship’s flag state. (PMSA1) 

Response: ARB disagrees that the regulation would require vessels to retrofit or 

perform modifications to their ships and engines. The regulation is not prescriptive. 

There are two compliance paths: the Reduced Onboard Power Option and the 

Equivalent Emissions Reduction Option. The first option requires the vessel operators 

to shut down their auxiliary engines while in port. Presumably, the vessels would have 

their electrical requirements met in some other manner, such as utilizing shore-based 

power. The second option simply establishes emission-reduction goals. The regulation 

does not tell vessel operators how to meet these goals, nor does it tell operators what 

equipment they must use to meet these goals or how to operate such equipment. The 

regulation provides operators with flexibility to meet these goals, permitting them to use 

any number of alternative emission control strategies that they choose. 

Furthermore, the regulation expressly states in (b)(2): “Nothing in this section shall be 

construed to amend, repeal, modify, or change in any way any applicable 

U.S. Coast Guard requirements. Any person subject to this section shall be responsible 

for ensuring compliance with both U.S. Coast Guard regulations and the requirements 

of this section, including but not limited to, obtaining any necessary approvals, 

exemptions, or orders from the U.S. Coast Guard.” 

As discussed in Chapter IV of the Technical Support Document, there are many vessels 

that already use shore power while docked, which means that the use of shore power 

as an emissions reduction option does not violate Coast Guard regulations. Moreover, 

vessel operators have flexibility to use alternative emission control strategies to achieve 
20 

emission reductions. Thus, there is no reason to believe that a vessel operator will have 

difficulties in complying with both the regulation and existing Coast Guard regulations. 

3. Comment: The retrofit requirements of the proposed regulation will be 

preempted under Section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act. Congress further added 

Paragraph (e)(2), which allows California to adopt standards and other 

requirements relating to the control of such engines, other than those identified in 

subpart (1), upon receiving authorization of U.S. EPA. (PMSA1) 

Response: ARB disagrees. While the U.S. EPA has determined that California engine 

retrofit requirements must receive U.S. EPA authorization, this regulation does not 

require vessel operators to retrofit or modify marine engines. 

Section 209(e) of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) generally prevents states from 

adopting emission standards for new nonroad engines. Marine vessel engines are by 

definition considered nonroad engines. However, Section 209(e) does not prohibit 

states and their political subdivisions from regulating the use of marine engines once 

placed into service. Such in-use requirements, whether adopted by a state or local 

government, including California or its political subdivisions, are not subject to potential 

federal preemption and therefore do not need U.S. EPA authorization to implement. 

Permissible in-use requirements include, but are not limited to, hours of usage and daily 

mass emission limits. The limit to such in-use requirements is that they can neither 

place additional requirements on the original engine manufacturer nor require a retrofit 

of the engine. 

Although some may interpret the regulation as imposing in-use operational 

requirements, there is still no conflict with the U.S. EPA regulation governing engines 

used on ocean-going vessels. The U.S. EPA regulation (40 CFR Part 94) applies only 

to new engines; regulates only NOx, particulate matter (PM), total hydrocarbons (THC), 

and carbon monoxide (CO); and is less stringent than the regulation for controlling NOx 

and diesel PM. The federal regulation applies to manufacturers of new engines 

(i.e., generally, those for which equitable title has not yet been transferred) and 

rebuilders of engines, whereas the regulation applies to engines that are already 

installed on vessels that are operating in regulated California waters. Thus, there is no 

conflict with the U.S. EPA regulation because compliance with both the State regulation 

and the federal regulation is reasonably feasible. 

Nevertheless, the CAA specifically allows California to seek a waiver of potential 

preemption for its nonroad engine regulations, including marine vessel engine 

regulations. To do so, California first adopts its regulations and then seeks 

authorization from U.S. EPA to enforce its regulations. ARB intends to seek a waiver 

from U.S. EPA for this regulation after it becomes effective. 

4. Comment: During the adoption of EPA’s Nonroad Emission-Control Program’s 

rulemaking regarding control of emissions from marine engines, U.S. EPA 

determined that marine emission control proposals “should be considered in the 
21 

broader context of EPA’s nonroad emission-control programs, international 

activities, including MARPOL Annex VI, our previous marine emission control 

program, European Union initiatives, and activities at the state level.” (Federal 

Register, Vol 67, No. 103 at pp. 37553.) The Air Resources Board should 

consider the adoption of their marine emission control proposal in at least as 

broad of a rulemaking context as U.S. EPA in order to fairly evaluate their 

rulemaking using the proper totality of the record. (PMSA1) 

Response: The Board adopted the regulation in a broad rulemaking context after staff 

developed the regulation in a transparent and public process. During the regulatory 

development process, ARB was aware of other related activities taking place on an 

international scale, including MARPOL Annex VI and efforts by the International 

Organization of Standardization (ISO) to develop a standardized shore-to-ship power 

system. 

The 1997 MARPOL standards were established by the International Maritime 

Organization (IMO) at the International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from 

Ships. The standards provide limits on NOx emissions from ships, depending on 

engine speed. The 2005 U.S. EPA category 3 standards are an implementation of 

international standards agreed to by 136 countries; the agreement is commonly known 

as MARPOL Annex VI. Ships built on or after 2000 are required to emit approximately 

6-12 percent less NOx, depending on engine speed. Although ARB was aware of these 

developments, their relevance to the regulation was minimal. 

ARB believes that the international efforts to develop standardized connections for 

shore power are more relevant. Recognizing the importance of standardizing shore 

power connection at ports throughout the world, the ISO formed a working group under 

its Technical Committee 8, Ships and Marine Technology, to develop a standardized 

shore-to-ship power system. The Port of Los Angeles is a member of this working 

group. Subcommittees have been formed to explore a number of issues related to 

developing a shore-to-ship power standard, including power demand, voltage, reliability, 

power transfer, equipment location, power outlets, and cable management systems. 

The objective is to establish Publicly Available Specifications (PAS), which will allow 

ports and carriers to refer to an official document that provides shore-to-ship power 

specifications. 

ARB believes that the Board used the proper totality of the record when adopting the 

regulation. 

C. Do Not Adopt Regulation 

5. Comment: The Clean Air Action Plan adopted by the ports should be allowed to 

proceed in a timely manner. Voluntary efforts will largely achieve the goals set in 

the Plan. ARB should step back from the proposed regulation. (PMSA2)
22 

Response: The San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan (Plan), adopted by the 

Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach in November 2006, addresses only those two 

ports. Furthermore, the emissions reductions estimated in the Plan by FY 2010/2011 

(4.1 tons per day [TPD] of NOx and 0.09 TPD of diesel PM) represent less than 

25 percent of the total hotelling emissions in these ports. The ARB regulation to reduce 

hotelling emissions will achieve 75 percent emission reductions by 2020 at these two 

ports and four additional ports: San Diego, Oakland, San Francisco, and Hueneme. 

The Plan is a good start but is inadequate to protect public health in communities 

surrounding California’s major ports. 

6. Comment: In lieu of adopting the regulation, PMSA recommends developing a 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the marine industry and the 

Board. The MOU would be fully actionable and comprehensive and consistent 

with Port plans, and would be developed such that early adopters are not 

punished, recognizes that some ships and marine terminals will be better suited 

for shore side power in the short-term than others, and acknowledges the lack of 

an international standard. (PMSA1) 

Response: ARB disagrees that an MOU would be as effective and health-protective as 

the adopted regulation. This regulation helps to achieve several health-related goals of 

the Board, including reducing diesel PM, reducing emissions from goods-movement 

activities, achieving and maintaining ambient air quality standards, and reducing 

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions to help mitigate the effects of global climate change. 

These goals and the regulation’s ability to help fulfill them are explained in Chapter I of 

the Technical Support Document (TSD). An MOU would not achieve all of the benefits 

of the regulation and would, therefore, be less effective. 

D. Exemptions to Ports 

7. Comment: I do not think it is wise to extend exemptions to any port users for 

any reason at the expense of our children and communities. These regulations 

need to reflect our determination to illuminate problems resulting from port 

pollution if not as an enforceable solution as a goal. (ANDERSON) 

Response: ARB believes that some general and specific exemptions to the regulation 

are needed. The regulation identifies general exemptions to its requirements: 

(1) vessels in “innocent passage,” (2) vessels owned or operated by local, State, federal 

or foreign governments in government non-commercial service, (3) steamships, 

(4) auxiliary engines using natural gas, and (5) vessels in fleets not meeting the de 

minimis vessel-visit criteria. Exemptions 1 - 4 are discussed in Chapter VI of the TSD. 

Exemption 5 exempts container-ship fleets making fewer than 25 visits to a California 

port, refrigerated-cargo-ship fleets making fewer than 25 visits to a port, and passengership fleets making fewer than five visits to a port from the requirements of the 

regulation. This exemption was originally included in a different section of the regulation 

but was moved to the general exemption section because it was a more logical location. 
23 

The regulation also includes exemptions to specific provisions in the regulation so that 

vessels are not penalized for violations that are due to unforeseen events beyond the 

vessel’s control. These exemptions include visits experiencing an emergency event or 

a delay by a federal agency. The regulation requires vessels complying with the 

Reduced Onboard Power Generation option to run their auxiliary engines no more than 

three to five hours while docked at a berth, depending on the type of power switching 

capability of the vessel. The regulation provides an exemption to the three- or five-hour 

operation limits for visits experiencing an emergency event or a delay by a federal 

agency as defined below: 

a. An emergency event has been defined as those times when the utility cannot 

provide power because of a transmission or distribution emergency, when the 

utility must reduce grid-based shore power to the port because of a natural 

disaster, or when the utility must reduce grid-based power to the port in 

response to the California Independent System Operator or the Los Angeles 

Department of Water and Power declaring a Stage 3 emergency or to avoid a 

Stage 3 emergency. These types of events are expected to occur 

infrequently. 

b. A ship’s departure may be delayed due to obligations imposed by federal 

agencies such as the U.S. Coast Guard or some other branch of the 

Department of Homeland Security. As with emergency events, these types of 

delays are expected to occur infrequently. 

ARB believes that these exemptions allow flexibility to address certain rare 

circumstances but are sufficiently limited so that the emissions occurring during the 

exempted events will be minimal. 

E. Other Ship Categories 

8. Comment: Tankers, bulk carriers, and tugs should not be exempt from this 

regulation. Tankers remain a major contributor to port emissions, accounting 

for roughly 20 percent of ship visits to California. Further, 45 percent of 

tanker visits are to Bay Area ports. Bulk carriers are also a significant 

contributor to hotelling emissions and are expected to be the second largest 

NOx contributor of the various vessel categories in 2010—second only to 

container ships. Finally, ARB has continued to delay including shore power 

for tugs, first as part of the harbor craft regulation and now in the current form 

of this rule. ARB must step in to ensure these sources do not emit pollution 

while sitting idle for extended periods of time in California’s harbors. 

(ENVORG2) 

9. Comment: Include tanker ships docking at refineries and car carrying ships. 

(WOEIP) 
24 

10. Comment: In San Diego, the bulk ships are a large part of the current problem, 

and, in fact, comprise all the ships that berth in National City. Cement ships 

make relatively few calls but stay in port for seven to ten days at a time. The 

port’s current maritime business plan identifies growth opportunities in bulk fruit, 

steel and other bulk cargo, so it seems probable the source of emissions will 

increase. We urge the Board to address bulk carriers in the near future with a 

rule requiring shore power or equivalent reductions. (EHC) 

11. Comment: Place high priority on the second phase of regulation for tankers, 

vehicle carriers, tugboats, and cargo ships. (FOE2)

12. Comment: We are concerned that delaying rulemaking on tankers, bulk ships, 

and vehicle carriers would delay achievement of the targeted SIP emission 

reductions and, therefore, urge the Board to place high priority on these vessel 

categories and proceed expeditiously with developing and adopting this second 

phase of the regulation as early as possible in 2008. (SCAQMD1) 

13. Comment: The ISOR indicates that container ships, refrigerated-cargo ships, 

and passenger ships are the most attractive candidates for cold-ironing because 

these ships spend a sufficient number of hours at berth, and have an ample 

power demand while hotelled. However, the regulation only applies to three 

types of ships and does not address the frequency of ships based on stated 

criteria related to emissions. (PMSA1) 

14. Comment: If a vessel meets criteria at any of California’s public ports or private 

marine terminals it is hard to understand why some vessels should be exempt 

based on the location of their port call versus others who may meet fewer of the 

criteria calling at a listed port. (PMSA1)

Response: ARB initially intended to develop a regulation affecting all six vessel 

categories; however, during the regulatory process, it became apparent that two distinct 

regulatory approaches were necessary to achieve emission reductions from all of the 

vessel categories. ARB chose to first address container ships, passenger ships, and 

refrigerated-cargo ships—vessel categories that account for more than 80 percent of 

the emissions from hotelling vessels and for whom shore power is a cost-effective 

emissions reduction technique. These vessel categories are similar in that they have 

high power demands (4-15 MW) and that the vessels in their fleets make frequent visits 

to the same ports on a regular basis. By addressing these three vessel categories, the 

regulation specifically applies to the six ports at which these vessels regularly call. 

In contrast, the other ship categories—vehicle carriers, bulk and general-cargo ships, 

and tankers—typically have lower power demands (0.5-1 MW) and have few vessels in 

their fleets that visit California ports regularly. To have kept all six vessel categories in 

one regulation would have created a more complex and unwieldy regulation, 

significantly delaying its development and implementation (thus delaying emission 

benefits). 
25 

ARB has now begun the regulatory process to develop a cost-effective regulation to 

reduce hotelling emissions from the other three vessel categories. Since all California 

ports receive visits from ships in the remaining three categories, there will be more ports 

evaluated than the six identified in the regulation. Furthermore, ARB is also evaluating 

shore power for tug boats as part of this regulatory process. ARB expects to bring a 

regulation for the Board’s consideration to reduce at-berth ship emissions for the other 

ship categories in 2009. 

F. Fleet De Minimis Visits Limits 

15. Comment: This regulation in its current form exempts container fleets that visit a 

port less than 25 times per year and passenger ships that visit less than five 

times per year. This could result in a significant loophole because polluting ships 

may not be required to comply. Requirement should apply to each vessel rather 

than to fleets so that cruise lines and shippers cannot create subsidiaries to 

evade public health compliance. (BCLAC2) 

16. Comment: The regulation in its current form exempts container fleets that visit a 

port less than 25 times per year and passenger ships that visit less than five 

times per year. We are concerned that this may evolve into a significant loophole 

and recommend that the requirement be expanded to include a per vessel 

threshold of two visits on top of the fleet wide requirements so that cruise lines 

and shippers cannot create subsidiaries to evade the rule. (ENVORG3) 

17. Comment: “Fleets,” for the purpose of this regulation, are specific to the port 

visited (Los Angeles and Long Beach are considered one port), not the shipping 

company and therefore could create a problem for the smaller ports like Oakland. 

A shipping company could choose to visit Oakland less often, in order to be 

exempt from the regulation while visiting that port. Discourage gaming by 

changing the definition of “fleet” for purposes of exemption from this regulation, to 

be all ships in the company fleet visiting any California port. (PGE1) 

18. Comment: Suggest that for container ships, the 25 visits per port be changed to 

25 visits to California in a year. Do the same for passenger cruise ships and 

extend to all of California ports. (UCS) 

19. Comment: Close loophole that exempts container fleets visiting less than 

25 times and passenger ships that visit less than five times per year. We feel 

this threshold is too high and could potentially be gamed. Hoping that thoughtful 

consideration could be given to ratcheting that threshold down at the very least 

during final compliance in 2020. Our preferred threshold would be any more than 

two visits per year to any California port. (NRDC) 

20. Comment: All visiting passenger ships should use shore power at berth. 

Container and reefer ships should also face a per vessel threshold of two visits 
26 

on top of fleet requirements to inhibit companies from circumventing the rule. 

(FOE2) 

21. Comment: This rule should require all cruise vessels visiting California to use 

shore power while at berth. (BCLAC2, ENVORG3) 

22. Comment: Strengthen the criteria for passenger ships. Strengthen the criteria 

that there should be a per ship rather than per visit requirement. (ALA) 

23. Comment: Add threshold for individual ships. (EHC) 

24. Comment: If these exemptions are approved as is, ARB staff should monitor 

their use to ensure they are not abused. (FOE2) 

25. Comment: ARB must evaluate annually that container ship visits for fleets 

falling below the 25 visits to a port de minimis limit do not exceed three percent of 

all container ship visits to California. (ENVORG2) 

26. Comment: In 2006, the Port of Oakland had approximately 1,900 unique ship 

calls, of which 93 percent were of fleets composed of 25 or more vessels. A very 

small fraction would not be subject to this rule. (POAKLAND2) 

Response: Staff proposed to exempt from the requirements of the regulation 

container-ship fleets making less than 25 visits to a California port, refrigerated-cargoship fleets making less than 25 visits to a port, and passenger-ship fleets making less 

than five visits to a port. At the Board hearing, the Board expressed its intent to modify 

these de minimis values to apply on a statewide basis, not an individual port basis, but 

directed staff to determine if this proposed modification would be cost effective. 

 

ARB conducted an economic analysis of modifying the de minimis visit criteria to a 

statewide basis and determined the following: 

• As adopted, the regulation captures 96 percent of the vessel visits for the three 

ship categories, and reduces NOx and PM emissions by an estimated 75 percent 

in 2020. 

• If the regulation were modified using statewide de minimis visit criteria, less than 

one percent of vessel visits would be additionally affected, resulting in less than 

one percent additional NOx and PM reductions. 

• The cost of capturing these additional vessels and visits would result in costeffectiveness values that would be up to 20 times higher than the average values 

of the adopted regulation. 

Based on the high cost-effectiveness values determined for those fleets that would be 

affected by a statewide de minimis visit criteria and the small amount of emission 
27 

reductions that can be generated, ARB chose not to change the visit criteria to a 

statewide basis. A detailed discussion of the analysis was included as Attachment III to 

the 15-day Package. 

ARB believes that adding a two-visit threshold per ship to the fleet de minimis visit 

criteria or that the criteria be changed to apply to individual ship visits instead of fleet 

visits would also result in high cost-effectiveness values with little additional emission 

reduction benefits. 

With respect to the passenger vessel visit comments requiring all passenger ships to 

connect to shore power when visiting a California port, nearly all of the passengervessel visits (95 percent) and the associated emissions have been captured in this 

regulation. There are companies whose visiting fleets made fewer than three visits to a 

given port in 2006, many of them making only a single visit to California that whole year. 

Those visits are a small percentage of the total, and were not found to be cost-effective 

for this regulation. 

 

With regard to the loophole and monitoring concerns of several commenters, ARB has 

addressed them in the regulation through the compliance reports and collection of the 

ports’ wharfinger data. ARB is requiring that the shipping companies submit compliance 

statements and the ports submit wharfinger data annually to the ARB. ARB will be able 

to determine if fleets are modifying their operations to stay below the 25-port-visit or 

five-port-visit de minimis criteria. ARB can also monitor if the 25-visits limit continues to 

capture the majority of the visits in the three ship categories, as it does now. If, during 

the regulation’s implementation, ARB determines that vessel fleets appear to be 

circumventing the requirements of the regulation by manipulating their vessel visits to 

California ports, ARB will consider proposing to the Board modifications to the 

regulation to prevent these practices in the future. 

 

27. Comment: The requirement of 25 visits per year needs to be detailed. Is this to 

any California port or 25 visits per port? Twenty-five visits is too many, as it 

suggests, depending on interpretation, that a ship may visit the Port of Oakland 

nearly every other week without being required to adopt shore power. These “de 

minimis” levels are loopholes that should be eliminated from the rule. (WOEIP) 

Response: The 25-visit limit applies to an entire fleet that visits a single port, not to an 

individual ship. The majority of vessels calling on the Port of Oakland are part of fleets 

that exceed the 25-ship-visits limits. Please see previous response for discussion about 

de minimis criteria. 

G. Compliance Schedules 

Note: Because staff received a multitude of comments on its originally proposed 

compliance schedules—and subsequently modified the schedules before the Board 

hearing—staff has listed all of these related comments together before responding to 

them. To do otherwise would create significant redundancy in the responses. 
28 

Additional responses to specific comments are provided after the general discussion of 

the compliance schedules.

Accelerate Schedules

28. Comment: Why wait another seven to ten years to fix a problem when we have 

the resources and technology to help it now. (ALLEN) 

29. Comment: Significant emissions reductions are possible now with alternative 

technologies that will result in air quality relief today and not seven years from 

now. (CCP) 

30. Comment: The proposed regulation allows industry to postpone emission 

reductions until 2014 when utility-based grid power is available. (AZA, TILLMAN) 

31. Comment: The regulation should encourage early action by ports, shipping 

companies and technology providers as soon as possible, rather than waiting for 

the state mandate to go into effect in 2014. Early emission reductions are 

perhaps the most important emission reductions given the extremely high levels 

of emission from ships in ports. (FOE1) 

32. Comment: Phase in early compliance instead of deferring all compliance until 

2014. (BCLAC2) 

33. Comment: Accelerate compliance timeframe. (ALA, SES, CCA, UCS) 

34. Comment: Timeline is too slow and too lax. The timeline requires no dockside 

emission reductions until 2014 in spite of the fact that technologies for immediate 

reductions are available and financially feasible. (WOEIP) 

35. Comment: The compliance schedule for grid-power systems is too relaxed. 

(BAAQMD1) 

36. Comment: The 2010 and an interim 2012 deadline will send a clear signal to 

ports, terminal operators, and shipping lines to shift toward shore power quickly 

and incrementally. (BCLAC2, ENVORG2, ENVORG3) 

37. Comment: Implementation of the San Pedro Port’s Clean Air Action Plan will be 

hastened and more certain if ARB requires these more immediate, short-term 

reductions. (ENVORG2, ENVORG3) 

38. Comment: Need interim targets for grid-based power option because of long 

lead time for shore power and should make these the same as non-grid-based 

alternatives. (SCAQMD2) 
29 

39. Comment: In ARB’s March 2006 report, Evaluation of Cold Ironing Ocean 

Going Vessels at California Ports, ARB found that 20 percent of ship calls 

utilizing cold-ironing by 2010 is both technologically feasible and cost effective. 

(CCP, ENVORG1) 

40. Comment: ARB’s Goods Movement Emission Reduction Plan (GMERP) 

committed to a shore power strategy that would require at least 20 percent of 

ship visits to use shore power by 2010. ARB must incorporate this specific 

provision into the regulation. (ENVORG2, ENVORG3). 

41. Comment: ARB should set aggressive short-term and interim deadlines 

beginning in 2010 and 2012 to meet goals set in the GMERP. (ENVORG1, 

FOE1) 

42. Comment: Early emission reduction target of 2010 will assist GMERP goal of 

20 percent of ship visits using shore power by 2010. (FOE2, ALA, BCLAC2) 

43. Comment: CARB may not meet its diesel risk reduction plan’s (DRRP) 2010 

target of 75 percent reduction of health risk from diesel PM unless regulations 

such as this one accelerate compliance. (BCLAC2). 

44. Comment: ARB’s DRRP commits to reducing the risk from diesel pollution by 

75 percent by 2010 but we are concerned that ARB is not on track to meet this 

target. Every regulation ARB is considering must be in line with the significant 

reductions that must happen by this date. (ENVORG2, ENVORG3) 

 Do Not Accelerate Schedules

45. Comment: The proposal to accelerate the proposed schedule is unrealistic due 

to: 1) the schedule for providing grid-based power; and 2) the viability of 

alternatives. (POLB1, POLB2) 

46. Comment: POLB is working with Southern California Edison to accomplish the 

required capacity enhancements as well as ensure that service to each terminal 

is enhanced to accommodate additional loads. Construction of the necessary 

improvements could extend well beyond the CARB’s cold ironing implementation 

date in 2014, and given the phased nature of the work, we have limited ability to 

move up completion of the initial work. Concerned about the impact the 

retrofitting of existing terminals will have on tenants and cargo moving activities. 

For example, large segments of an operating terminal must be disrupted to install 

underground conduits, ship berths must be taken off-line for days or weeks to 

install outlets and system-wide outages will be required to upgrade the terminal 

electrical system. All these elements can combine to delay cargo operations and 

can have unintended consequences to the economy—backing up ships, delaying 

cargo handling, as well as train and truck traffic congestion. We must carefully 

plan how multiple concurrent retrofit projects can take place while minimizing the 
30 

delay in cargo movement. We do not believe acceleration of the implementation 

schedule could be achieved. (POLB1, POLB2) 

 Make the Schedules More Similar or Technology-Neutral

47. Comment: Harmonize compliance time for all energy sources. (EHC) 

48. Comment: Establish equal timelines based on emission reductions regardless 

of the technology. (AZA) 

49. Comment: Grid-based shore power must comply with the same timeline as 

alternative technologies. (ENVORG1) 

50. Comment: Modify the rule to “level the playing field” in terms of compliance 

timelines for grid-based and alternative shore power technologies. (WOEIP) 

51. Comment: The regulation should have a single, technology-neutral compliance 

path. (BAAQMD2) 

52 Comment: Support uniform timeline for compliance, but ask regulation’s pace 

be set by the most aggressive technology that’s available now. (CCP) 

53. Comment: It is unfortunate that the current regulation contains differing 

compliance schedules depending on which method is selected. Port authorities, 

terminal operators, and vessel owners will be hindered in their planning and 

decision-making by the lack of a single compliance schedule for all potential 

solutions. This proposal may have the effect of delaying any implementation at 

all until the latest possible date which would postpone the emission reductions 

benefits that can be implemented in the near term if a common compliance date 

was available. (POAKLAND1) 

54. Comment: Create a level playing field by requiring all ships reduce auxiliary 

engine emissions 20 percent by 2010. (PGE1) 

55. Comment: The regulation should include a single compliance schedule of 

20 percent of ship visits to California ports use shore power by January 1, 2010, 

40 percent by January 1, 2012, 60 percent by January 1, 2014, and 80 percent 

by January 1, 2016. (BCLAC1, BCLAC2, BAAQMD1, ENVORG2, ENVORG3, 

CCP, FOE1) 

56. Comment: Shipping fleets should be allowed to comply with the mix of 

technologies that best suits their operational needs. (BAAQMD1) 

57. Comment: The regulation should address only emission reductions and be 

technology-neutral. Flexibility in the regulation will allow the Port of Oakland and 
31 

its partners to continue to develop and refine alternative emissions reduction 

technologies. (OMCC) 

58. Comment: Supports technology-neutral standards. (UCS) 

59. Comment: The regulation should ultimately level the playing field between all 

emission reductions technologies, whether they are electrification by utility or 

non-utility generation or a new advancement in alternative control technology. 

(FOE1) 

60. Comment: Level the playing field for all technologies to be implemented. 

(AZA, MAERSK) 

61. Comment: Requesting that ARB set the standards along with timeframes to 

meet those standards and then basically stand back and allow industry to seek 

out the technology that will result in the required emissions reductions. 

(MAERSK) 

62. Comment: Let the stakeholders decide what to do as long as they achieve the 

desired emission reductions. (DW) 

63. Comment: Technical neutrality. The current language contains a single 

presumptive solution which is grid power, with a glancing nod to the possibility of 

one or two tentative options. (CAL1) 

64. Comment: Allow a certain amount of flexibility for businesses to comply with 

requirements. (CMTA) 

65. Comment: Regulation should be flexible by not requiring how the emission 

reductions are achieved. If a requirement is 50 percent in 2014, for example, 

there should not be a prescription requiring half the ship visits to shut off their 

engines completely. It should be open to, for example, shutting off 50 percent of 

the engines all the time or some combination that achieves the desired results. 

(PGE1) 

66. Comment: Include a common implementation date for all alternative solutions. 

Staggering the implementation dates will create a recipe for confusion for 

carriers/operators as they try to quantify what the cost/benefit ratios are among 

the alternative options. Carriers/operators will take a “wait and see” approach. 

Staggering will retard technological growth. Certain solutions will have 

advantages while others are disadvantaged. Staggering will result in increases 

in emissions as cargo volume and ship visits increase during the intervening 

years. (CAL1) 

67. Comment: Compliance standards within the proposed regulation serve to thwart 

new technological solutions that are available today. This is because the 
32 

regulation is based on a presumptive solution, which is port electrification. 

(LAPEER) 

68. Comment: The regulation may create a multi-tiered playing field, favoring one 

emission reduction technology over another. The regulation dramatically favors 

a solution only realized years into the future while discouraging presently 

available new technologies. (FOE1) 

69. Comment: The standards and timelines issued under this rule will negatively 

impact existing and ongoing innovation and impair investment in alternative 

technologies. This rule also has the potential to penalize and discourage those 

who would otherwise work to develop and adopt alternative technologies sooner 

than 2014. The rule should not punish those who lead the industry as early 

adopters of new and innovative technologies, but should seek ways to 

compliment their efforts. (PMSA1) 

70. Comment: The proposal has a different schedule and a different emission 

standard depending on which technology is used to deliver power to vessels. 

This approach would favor the use of grid power over that from alternative 

technologies at the expense of earlier emission reductions and irrespective of 

which source of power is the cleanest. The regulation provides no quantifiable 

incentive for ports or marine terminal operator to take aggressive steps to 

achieve emission reductions sooner than 2014. Consequently, the approach 

could impede the more rapid deployment of alternative technologies capable of 

producing quantifiable emission reductions as soon as 2010. (PERATA) 

71. Comment: Concerned that alternative technology which would secure early and 

critical emission reductions from shore power are in effect being penalized. As 

written, the timelines and percentages for compliance are set differently for gridbased shore power; non-grid-based shore power and alternative control 

technologies; and hybrid combinations of electricity from grid, non-grid and 

alternative control technologies. The slowest and most relaxed schedule for 

compliance is placed on grid-based shore power which will create conditions for 

industry to choose the slowest and most relaxed compliance. There is a 

possibility for industry to, as the grid-based deadline approaches, argue for 

delaying compliance on the grounds that it is not reachable. (ENVORG1) 

72. Comment: The regulation has different requirements including different 

compliance dates for those choosing grid power and those choosing an 

alternative such as the Wittmar system. The regulation disadvantages ports like 

Oakland that are in position to reduce emissions sooner. For example, under the 

current draft, if a port wants to use grid power, it is required to reduce emissions 

50 percent by 2014. If a port chooses an alternative it is required to reduce 

emissions by 20 percent in 2010 and by 2014 it would be required to reduce 

emissions by 60 percent. This arrangement discourages and penalizes early 

action. (PGE1) 
33 

73. Comment: The rule penalizes alternative compliance technologies by requiring 

adherence to a more stringent implementation schedule compared with gridbased power. Requirements should favor near-term, low-cost solutions that 

provide immediate emission reductions with bridge technologies until the grid or 

zero-emissions distributed generation technologies are available at cost-effective 

prices. (WOEIP) 

Make the Schedules More Aggressive

74. Comment: The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are well underway in 

implementing the San Pedro Ports Clean Air Action Plan shore power measure. 

The Ports envision that grid-based electric power to be their primary technology. 

Alternative technologies such as distributed generation would provide significant 

emission reductions as the grid-based infrastructure is constructed and the 

proposed changes would ensure the emission reductions are realized as early as 

possible. (SCAQMD1) 

75. Comment: We recognize that there may be additional costs associated with the 

more aggressive compliance schedule that we recommended which had a 2010 

compliance date for both options. However, we believe that vessel operators can 

take a longer lead time technology path such as grid-based shore power for the 

longer term compliance targets and in the interim deploy more near-term 

solutions without incurring substantial economic impacts. (SCAQMD1) 

76. Comment: We evaluated the capital and operating costs of several alternative 

solutions for a typical terminal with specified number of calls and vessels and 

assuming 20 percent compliance in 2010: 

o Grid-power = $2.30 per TEU 

o Fuel cell = $3.40 per TEU 

o Purchase of LNG-power dockside generator with SCR = $0.80 per TEU 

o Rental of generator assuming $1000/hr usage fee = $3.50 per TEU 

Based on the analysis, the additional cost of compliance can be easily borne by 

the vessel operators (and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach covering the 

cost of shore-side grid power) who would be able to recoup the cost to implement 

one or a combination of the technologies through a modest increase in per TEU 

charge. (SCAQMD1, SCAQMD2) 

77. Comment: The regulation should require, regardless of technology, that 

30 percent of all ship visits to CA ports use shore power by 2010, 60 percent by 

2012, 80 percent by 2014, and 100 percent by 2016. (ENVORG1) 

78. Comment: Raise the 50 percent compliance requirement for 2020 to 

90 percent. (WOEIP) 
34 

79. Comment: Recommend the following revised compliance schedule: 

Date Reduced Onboard 

Power Option (Grid) 

Equivalent Emission 

Reduction Option 1

January 1, 2010 20% visits and power 

demand1,2 20% reduction 

January 1, 2012 40% visits and power 

demand1,2 40% reduction 

January 1, 2014 60% visits and 

power demand 1 60% reduction 

January 1, 2017 70% visits and 

power demand 1 

70% reduction 

January 1, 2020 80% visits and 

power demand 1 80% reduction 

1. In addition, all ships must use shore power if available. 

2. Equivalency may be demonstrated on a port-wide basis based upon a submittal by the 

Port Authority. 

An equivalency demonstration on a port-wide basis should be allowed for the 

2010 and 2012 requirements under the Reduced Onboard Power Option in 

recognition of the lead time needed to construct the infrastructure at individual 

terminals. The Port Authority would submit the equivalency demonstration. The 

proposed regulation is on a vessel operator basis at this time so on average, it 

should come out to be the same port-wide. (SCAQMD1, SQAMD2) 

80. Comment: We believe our recommended schedules are feasible given the 

current state of existing and developing technologies. San Pedro Ports Clean Air 

Action Plan calls for significant use of grid-supplied shore power to reduce 

hotelling emissions which will result in about a 20 percent reduction in NOx 

emissions by the 2010/2011 timeframe. Other control technologies, such as DG 

and after treatment systems, offer alternative means of compliance for fleets. 

Use of shore-side after-treatment systems is also being demonstrated at the Port 

of Long Beach this year which is potentially capable of achieving over 90 percent 

reductions in NOx and PM emissions. SCR has also been successfully installed 

and tested on an auxiliary engine onboard a container vessel achieving 

90 percent reduction in NOx. (SCAQMD1) 

81. Comment: Add an exemption in section (e) for vessel operators complying with 

sections (d)(2)(A)(1) and (d)(2)(A)(2), if the operator can demonstrate, prior to 

2014, that meeting the emission reduction targets is not feasible due to physical 

limitations, safety, or other reasons. The operator must demonstrate that the 

only choice is grid-based power and show progress to developing the necessary 

infrastructure to meet the emission reduction targets of sections (d)(2)(A)(3) and 

(d)(2)(A)(4). (SCAQMD1, SCAQMD2) 
35 

82. Comment: We recommend the following changes to the regulatory language 

(SCAQMD1): 

1. Change Table under section (g)(1) to have subsequent terminal plan 

updates beginning in 2011 under the Grid-Based Shore Power option. 

2. Change subparagraphs (h)(1)(A) and (h)(2)(A) so that all vessel fleet 

plans be submitted no later than July 1, 2009, regardless of compliance 

approach. 

3. Specifically, revise Table 3 under section (h)(2)(A) to reflect submittal of 

initial vessel plans by July 1, 2009, with subsequent submittals every two 

years to 2019. 

Supports the Revised Compliance Options

83. Comment: We support the staff-proposed changes that will create level playing 

field for alternative measures, such as DG systems, so they can continue to 

emerge and mature and serve as long-term options for ports like Oakland that 

might not be able to deliver a cost-effective grid power option. (POAKLAND2) 

Do Not Support the Revised Compliance Options

84. Comment: The NOx emission reductions for the current proposal compared to 

the emission reductions under Section (d)(2)(B) of the October 2007 release are 

1.6 tons per day (TPD) less in 2010, 2.6 TPD less in 2012, and 1.9 TPD less in 

2014. South Coast needs those reductions. (SCAQMD1, SCAQMD2). 

Response to All Compliance Schedule Comments: ARB received more comments 

about the originally proposed compliance schedules than any other component of the 

proposed regulation. Taking into account all of these comments, ARB revised the 

proposed regulation significantly before taking it to the Board for consideration of 

approval in December 2007. Below is a thorough discussion of the compliance 

schedules, both those originally proposed in Appendix A to the Staff Report and those 

ultimately adopted by the Board. ARB agrees that emission reduction benefits must be 

realized as early as possible and that no particular technology should be given 

preference over another to achieve these emission reductions. 

Original Proposal

The original proposal included four compliance schedules—one for the grid power 

option and three for the emission reduction option. The table below depicts these 

originally recommended options: 
36 

Date 

Limited Engine 

Operation 

(Grid) 

Reduced 

Emission 

Operation (Grid) 

Reduced 

Emission 

Operation 

(Non-Grid) 

Reduced 

Emission 

Operation 

(Both) 

January 1, 2010 - - 20% of 

emissions 

January 1, 2012 - - 40% of 

emissions 

20% of 

emissions 

January 1, 2014 50% of visits 50% of emissions 60% of 

emissions 

50% of 

emissions 

January 1, 2016 - - 80% of 

emissions - 

January 1, 2020 80% of visits 80% of emissions - 80% of 

emissions 

The overall intent of these original schedules was to recognize that grid-based shore 

power would take time to implement because of the significant infrastructure 

requirements associated with it, while alternative technologies could be deployed within 

a shorter timeframe. 

Although one of the goals in the Goods Movement Emission Reduction Plan (GMERP) 

was to require 20 percent of the ship visits to California’s ports to use shore power by 

2010, ARB did not propose a 2010 compliance requirement for grid-based shore power. 

Grid-based shore power implementation will require extensive modification to port and 

terminal electrical infrastructures. In some cases, a significant upgrade to the utility grid 

is needed to bring the additional electrical power to the port. Such modifications are 

likely to require environmental review, permits, and complex construction—construction 

activity that needs to be coordinated with an operating terminal—which is likely to take 

up to five years to complete. The proposed regulation’s initial milestone of 2014 for 

shore power allows for five years for initial implementation. 

Nevertheless, earlier reductions will occur from shore power projects already planned at 

some California ports. Emissions reductions from vessels using shore power at 

Long Beach and Los Angeles will occur well before 2014 because of commitments 

made in the Clean Air Action Plan. If the plan is fully implemented, ARB anticipates 

reductions of 1,300 tons of NOx emissions and 37 tons of PM emissions by 2011, which 

represents a reduction in emissions of 15 percent for NOx and 20 percent for PM of 

emissions in 2011 at the ports. The ports are continuing to update the Clean Air Action 

Plan, and it is likely both ports will identify additional reductions for shore power prior to 

2014. In addition, to satisfy the 2014 milestone, ARB anticipates that emission 

reductions as a result of the regulation will begin in 2011 and significant reductions will 

occur in 2012 and 2013. 

The regulation requires that 50 percent of the vessel visits connect to shore power in 

2014 as opposed to the GMERP’s strategy for a shore power that requires 60 percent of 

the vessel visits use shore power by 2015. ARB proposed a compliance date one year 

earlier to allow the NOx emission reductions from the proposed regulation to be used to 
37 

satisfy the South Coast air basin SIP for attaining the PM2.5 ambient air quality standard. 

By moving the date up one year, ARB proportionally reduced the percentage of vessel 

visits from 60 percent to 50 percent. In 2020, the regulation satisfies the GMERP goal 

of 80 percent shore power (or equivalent). 

The originally proposed “non-grid” schedule assumed that alternative technologies 

could be deployed more rapidly. These technologies include distributed generation; 

emission controls installed on the ships (e.g., particulate control traps, selective catalytic 

reduction units, alternative fuels); or emission controls installed at the wharf (e.g., a 

“bonnet” capture-and-treat technology). ARB had proposed an aggressive schedule of 

20, 40, 60, 80 percent emission reductions by 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016, 

respectively. 

Revised Compliance Schedules

As mentioned above, ARB considered the comments received about the original 

compliance schedules and revised the schedules before taking the proposed regulation 

to the Board in December 2007. The compliance schedules in the regulation, as 

adopted by the Board in December 2007 are as follows: 

Date 

Reduced Onboard 

Power Option 

(Grid) 

Equivalent 

Emissions 

Reduction Option 

January 1, 2010 

Ships must use 

shore power if 

available 

10% reduction 

January 1, 2012 

Ships must use 

shore power if 

available 

25% reduction 

January 1, 2014 50% visits and 

power demand 50% reduction 

January 1, 2017 70% visits and 

power demand 

70% reduction 

January 1, 2020 80% visits and 

power demand 80% reduction 

For the grid-based shore power compliance path, now called the “Reduced Onboard 

Power Option,” ARB proposed to keep the targets of 50 percent and 80 percent of visits 

using shore power for 2014 and 2020, respectively, but also to require a similar 

percentage of onboard electricity generation to be reduced. Onboard electricity 

generation is directly related to emissions; therefore, it is a better measure of emissions 

reduction than visits alone. To assure a reasonable rate of progress between 2014 and 

2020, ARB proposed an interim 2017 milestone of 70 percent of fleet visits using shore 

power while reducing onboard electricity generation by 70 percent. ARB also 

emphasized that ships with the capability of using shore power must use shore power 
38 

when visiting a berth that was capable of providing the power in a technically compatible 

manner, although that requirement was in the original proposal. 

In adopting the regulation, the Board concurred with staff that 2014 was a reasonable 

initial requirement for grid-based shore power because of the extensive capital 

improvements required at the 31 affected terminals at six California ports, as well as the 

hundreds of vessels that must be retrofitted to accept shore power. 

ARB reduced the other three originally proposed compliance options to a single option 

called the “Equivalent Emissions Reduction Option.” Furthermore, ARB aligned the 

requirements of this option more closely with the Reduced Onboard Power Option, 

thereby reducing any unintentional weighting of one option over the other, as some 

commenters had asserted with the original proposal. As with the Reduced Onboard 

Power Option, the regulation now has an interim 2017 target. Finally, to further balance 

the two options, the regulation provides an incentive with the Equivalent Emissions 

Reduction option for early or additional emissions reductions. Please see the response 

to Comments 86-98 for a description of this incentive program. 

The Equivalent Emissions Reduction Option allows any technology to be used to reach 

the emission reduction targets, including shore power. This option is entirely technology 

neutral. 

In response to Comments 28-44 regarding accelerating the compliance schedule for 

grid-based shore power, ARB maintains that 2014 is a reasonable initial target to allow 

all 31 affected terminals to design the shore power infrastructure, receive CEQA 

approval, build the infrastructure while the terminals are still fully active, and work with 

the local electrical utilities to provide sufficient power to the terminals. 

More specific to Comments 39-42, ARB disagrees that the ARB’s March 2006 draft 

report, Evaluation of Cold Ironing Ocean Going Vessels at California Ports (Evaluation 

Report), found that 20 percent of ship calls utilizing cold-ironing by 2010 is both 

technologically feasible and cost effective. The purpose of the draft Evaluation Report 

was to determine if cold-ironing was feasible at California ports and to determine which 

ocean-going ship categories were the most attractive candidates for using shore power 

as a means of reducing at-berth or hotelling emissions. The draft Evaluation Report 

concluded that cold-ironing is feasible at California ports (at the time the report was 

released, shore power was already being installed at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long 

Beach). It also concluded that the most attractive vessel candidates for shore power, 

based on cost-effectiveness analyses that were performed on each ship category, are 

passenger ships, container ships, and refrigerated cargo shipsships that make 

frequent visits to a California port, spend a sufficient number of hours at berth, and have 

an ample power demand while hotelling. The draft report was intended as a prelude to 

ARB’s development of this regulation and did not include recommended dates for 

cold-ironing ships in California. These dates were to be determined later as ARB 

developed this regulation. 
39 

The draft Evaluation Report did illustrate the potential emission benefits from 

cold-ironing ocean-going ships for 2010, 2015, and 2020, which are the target dates 

included in ARB’s Goods Movement Emission Reduction Plan (GMERP, 2006). The 

GMERP identifies numerous strategies for reducing emissions from all significant 

emission sources involved in goods movement in California, including ocean-going 

vessels. For controlling hotelling emissions, the GMERP established a goal of utilizing 

shore power for 20 percent of the ship visits to California ports by 2010, 60 percent of 

visits by 2015, and 80 percent of visits by 2020. However, as mentioned earlier, ARB 

determined that it would be unrealistic to require all terminals to have grid-based shore 

power available by 2010 because of the lead time required to install the equipment. 

Consequently, ARB did not include a shore-power visit requirement for 2010 or 2012. 

Regarding Comments 43 and 44, the Board approved the Risk Reduction Plan to 

Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles

(Diesel RRP) in 2000. The Diesel RRP presented information on the available options 

for reducing diesel PM and recommended regulations to achieve these reductions. The 

Diesel RRP’s scope was broad, addressing all categories of mobile and stationary 

engines. It included control measures for all off-road diesel sources, such as those 

covered by this regulation. The goals of the Diesel RRP are to reduce California’s 

diesel PM emissions and associated cancer risks by 75 percent by 2015, and 

85 percent by 2020 from the 2000 levels. ARB maintains that the regulation adopted by 

the Board in December 2007 will help meet the goals of the Diesel RRP.

ARB agrees with Comments 45 and 46 that an accelerated shore-power schedule is 

infeasible. 

In response to Comments 47-66, ARB believes that by reducing the compliance options 

from four to two and more closely aligning those options to each other, any perceived or 

unintentional preference within the regulation for one technology over any other has 

been eliminated, especially with additional incentives for early emission reductions in 

the Equivalent Emission Reduction option. 

Although the two compliance options are now similar and balanced, ARB believes it is 

unrealistic to merge the two options into one, technology-neutral schedule, as requested 

by several of the commenters. ARB maintains that alternative technologies can be 

deployed earlier than 2014 since the considerable infrastructure requirements of gridbased shore power are not applicable (although shore power can be used for this 

compliance option); therefore, some earlier compliance targets are appropriate for the 

Equivalent Emissions Reduction option. Regarding the Equivalent Emissions Reduction 

option itself, it is technology neutral: any technology capable of meeting the emission 

reduction targets is allowable. 

Comments 67-72 state that the regulation discourages alternative technologies because 

of the inequity of the originally proposed compliance schedules. ARB believes that it 

has addressed these concerns by modifying the compliance options into two, more 

similar paths, providing additional early-emission credits for the technology-neutral 
40 

Equivalent Emissions Reduction option. Furthermore, the 2010 and 2012 emissionreduction targets of 10 percent and 25 percent, respectively, are more modest than the 

originally proposed 20 percent and 40 percent. ARB recognizes that there are only a 

couple of shore-side alternative technologies that may be available by 2010 to reduce 

at-berth emissions: non grid-based shore power systems such as the Wittmar liquid 

natural gas engine system, and after-treatment systems such as the Advanced 

Maritime Emissions Control System being developed by Advanced Cleanup 

Technologies, Inc. Both of these technologies are at the “proof of concept” stage and 

will take some time to be fully demonstrated, commercialized, and deployed at the 

ports. Ship-side alternative controls such as Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) may 

also be available by 2010, but these too are at the demonstration stage. Therefore, 

ARB believes that the 2010 and 2012 emission-reduction targets in the regulation, 

although less stringent than those originally proposed, are more realistic and 

appropriate. 

Comments 73-76 and 80 mention using available technologies as “bridge” technologies, 

achieving emission reductions early while grid-based shore power can be installed. 

When developing the regulation, ARB concluded that by requiring alternative 

technologies for shorter-term emission reductions while waiting for shore-power 

infrastructure to be installed for the long term essentially doubled the cost of the 

regulation. 

For example, ARB estimated it would cost $125 million to install shore power 

infrastructure at the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles in order for terminals to 

satisfy their fleet’s 2014 shore-power visits requirements. If these fleets were also 

required to comply with a 20 percent emission reduction by 2010 and 40 percent 

reduction by 2014, ARB estimates that the cost to comply with these reductions using 

distributed generation would be another $150 million, assuming $1,000 per operating 

hour. 

Specific to Comment 76, the commenter did not provide the basis for the cost-per-TEU 

figures presented, so ARB cannot replicate those estimates. Nevertheless, ARB 

disagrees that the technologies recommended for deployment by 2010 are fully 

developed or commercially available. For example, grid power at all of the 31 affected 

terminals will not be in place by 2010; fuel cells capable of supplying adequate power to 

a vessel (for example, one megawatt to five megawatts for container ships) require 

many hours to start-up and shut down, and they have a large footprint, thereby making 

them poor candidates for shore power; and the portable generator mentioned is only in 

the “proof of concept” stage—this equipment could not be deployed by 2010 on the 

scale that the commenter has suggested. 

For the reasons enumerated above, ARB believes that a more aggressive emissions 

reduction schedule, as suggested in Comments 77-79 is unrealistic. In response to 

Comment 78, ARB is requiring an 80 percent reduction by 2020, not 50 percent 

reduction. 
41 

Comments 80 and 81 suggest that alternative technologies are available for immediate 

deployment. ARB believes that these technologies are promising; however, the 

technologies to which the commenter referred are still in a “proof of concept” stage. 

These technologies have not been deployed to date, nor are they commercially 

available yet. A wide deployment by 2010 is unrealistic. 

Comment 82 requests specific text changes to the regulation. The first two proposed 

revisions are based on the commenter’s request to have grid-based shore power 

requirements beginning in 2010. Since there are no such requirements in the 

regulation, these revisions are unnecessary. ARB revised the regulation to address the 

third proposed revision: Whereas the commenter wanted biennial submissions of 

vessel plans starting on July 1, 2009, the regulation now requires submittal of these 

plans, including updates, by July 1 of 2009, 2011, 2013, 2016, and 2019. 

H. Early Reductions and Extra Time 

85. Comment: Shipping lines that achieve early emission reductions by any 

acceptable method should receive additional time in reaching the end goal of the 

regulation. (BAAQMD1) 

Response: ARB disagrees. We feel that the most important goal of this regulation is to 

meet the 50 percent emission reductions by 2014 and ultimately the 80 percent 

emission reductions by 2020. The regulation to reduce emissions from hotelling vessels 

in California’s ports will help meet several health-related goals of the Board, including 

reducing diesel PM, reducing emissions from goods-movement activities, achieving and 

maintaining ambient air quality standards, and reducing GHG emissions to help mitigate 

the effects of global warming. 

Over the last several years alone, federal and State agencies have adopted plans to 

reduce emissions and associated health risks as quickly as possible in the Federal 

Clean Air Act, the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, and the Emission Reduction Plan for the 

Ports and Goods Movement in California. 

The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (U.S. EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (national 

standards) for pollutants considered harmful to public health, including fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) and ozone. Set to protect public health, the national standards are 

adopted based on a review of health studies by experts and a public process. The 

South Coast Air Basin (Air Basin), which is home to the two largest ports in California, 

the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, exceeds the national standards for both 

ozone and PM2.5. Consequently, a State Implementation Plan (SIP) is required for the 

Air Basin that outlines how and when the region will attain the national standards. 

Although ARB originally considered a draft proposal with an early credit mechanism, it 

was ultimately decided that such an approach was not appropriate. The U.S. EPA 

requires the Air Basin to meet the PM2.5 standards by 2015, but the emission reductions 
42 

must be in place by 2014. The emission reductions achieved by the regulation will play 

an essential role in assisting the South Coast Air Basin with meeting its 2014 PM2.5 

deadline as well as its future ozone deadlines. 

SIP requirements are not the only timely commitments for reducing emissions as quickly 

as possible. In 2000, the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter 

Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles (Diesel RRP) was developed by 

the ARB which presented information on the available options for reducing diesel PM 

and recommended regulations to achieve these reductions. The Diesel RRP’s scope 

was broad, addressing all categories of mobile and stationary engines. It included 

control measures for all off-road diesel sources, such as those covered by the 

regulation. The ultimate goal of the Diesel RR is an 85 percent reduction from 2000 

levels, in California’s diesel PM emissions and associated cancer risks by 2020. The 

regulation will reduce diesel PM emissions and the local health impacts from ships 

docked in California’s ports and will assist the Board with meeting the 2020 Diesel RRP 

goal. 

In April 2006, the Board approved the Emission Reduction Plan for the Ports and Goods 

Movement in California (GMERP). The GMERP identifies strategies for reducing 

emissions created from the movement of goods through California ports and into other 

regions of the State. The GMERP is part of the broader Goods Movement Action Plan 

(GMAP) being jointly carried out by the California Environmental Protection Agency and 

the Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency. 

The GMERP identifies numerous strategies for reducing emissions from all significant 

emission sources involved in goods movement, including ocean-going vessels, harbor 

craft, cargo handling equipment, locomotives, and trucks. Specific to hotelling 

emissions, the GMERP established a goal of utilizing shore power for 20 percent of the 

ship visits to California ports by 2010, 60 percent of visits by 2015, and 80 percent of 

visits by 2020. While the regulation would represent a significant move toward 

satisfying the GMERP goals by requiring specific vessel types to shut down their 

engines while docked, the final requirements of the regulation are consistent with the 

emission reduction goals in the GMERP. 

ARB recognizes that incentives for early emission reductions are necessary and have 

included criteria for accumulating and using fleet emission credits in the final regulation 

under the equivalent emissions reduction option. Additionally, there are other 

government programs that can provide financial assistance as incentives for early 

reductions. See the response to Comments 86-98 for a discussion of early action 

credits and government funding. There are several incentive program options available 

to help California reach its goals for cleaner air.

I. Emission Credits and Incentives for Early Compliance 

86. Comment: Incentives in the form of additional emissions credits for early 

adoption would provide a strong incentive for ocean carriers and marine 
43 

terminals to address the issue of at-berth vessel emissions, resulting in 

emissions reductions much sooner than the 2014 deadline currently included in 

the regulation for the first phase of implementation. Absent incentives, the 

regulated community will take a “wait and see” attitude because technology is 

evolving rapidly and the infrastructure for utility-based shore power does not exist 

in many places at the moment. An incentive for early adoption would drive the 

development of new technology and harness the power of the marketplace, 

which will ultimately result in more cost-effective technologies that would achieve 

the emission reductions goals now rather than later. (OMCC)

87. Comment: Early adoption incentives relieve much of the uncertainty that 

carriers now face with regard to election of emissions elimination/control 

technologies. With early adoption incentives, carriers and terminal operators can 

be certain that their investments will not become stranded. Early adoption 

incentives will result in cleaner air sooner, may have the positive effect of 

creating competition among carriers to gain recognition as environmental 

leaders, can assuage skeptical investors, corporate boards, and other financial 

institutions to support related investments, and will inspire new technological 

solutions beyond the current crop. (CAL1) 

88. Comment: This regulation as written will not reduce a single ounce of harmful 

emissions until January 1st, 2014, at the earliest when mandated reductions go 

into effect. As written, the proposed regulation offers no incentives for early 

adopters to achieve compliance before being forced to. Incentives for early 

adoption of alternative control solutions are essential to encourage ocean 

carriers, vessel owners and terminal operators to use proven emissions 

preventative technologies that are available now. (LAPEER) 

89. Comment: Early emission reductions are the most important emission 

reductions. Supports the inclusion of firm financial incentives in the regulatory 

language to encourage shipping lines into action now, rather than waiting for a 

state mandate to go into effect in six years. ARB should work with the ports to 

determine any additional incentives that can be provided to shipping lines that 

adopt early compliance of the regulation before the first 2010 compliance 

deadline. (BCLAC1, ENVORG1) 

90. Comment: Incentives for early action have the real potential to spur innovative 

control strategies to cut hotelling emissions which are the largest single source of 

emissions at the Port of Oakland. While Wittmar Technologies has pioneered an 

innovative control strategy, incentives for early action can both advance this 

technology and spur the development of other new approaches. (BAAQMD2) 

91. Comment: The draft regulation lacks the incentives for early adoption that were 

included in earlier drafts of the regulation. (POAKLAND1) 
44 

92. Comment: Incentives for early adoption, once considered, now redacted from 

the latest version need to be replaced. (CAL1) 

93. Comment: An earlier draft of the regulation recognized the benefits of a 

regulatory incentive to achieve early reductions and we strongly request that the 

concept be added back into the final version presented to the ARB Board. 

Without incentives for early compliance, we believe very little actual reductions 

will occur before 2014, at least in our region. (BAAQMD1) 

94. Comment: The current version of the regulation should be rewritten to include 

such incentives, as the July 12th version did. (ENVORG1) 

95. Comment: The regulation should include a financial incentive to lure shipping 

lines into action now, rather than waiting for a state mandate to go into effect in 

six years. (BCLAC1, ENVORG1) 

96. Comment: Early action incentives should be provided for all compliance 

options. (WOEIP) 

97. Comment: Establish emission credit bank for early compliance. (AZA) 

98. Comment: We support staff’s proposed modifications for creating incentives for 

early reductions. (POAKLAND2) 

Response: ARB concurs that incentives will help bring earlier emission reductions and 

will encourage the development of new alternative control technology. To that end, 

ARB recommended at the Board hearing that the regulation be modified to provide early 

compliance incentives for the Equivalent Emissions Reduction option. This incentive 

provides a third method of encouraging early emission reductions—Proposition 1B 

funds and the Carl Moyer program being the other two. Funds from these sources are 

available for either compliance option. 

The Equivalent Emissions Reduction option requires vessel fleets to reduce their 

emissions by 10 percent in 2010, 25 percent in 2012, 50 percent in 2014, 70 percent in 

2017, and 80 percent in 2020. This compliance option is entirely technology-neutral—

emissions reductions can be achieved using a variety of techniques. The regulation 

encourages early reductions for this compliance option in the following manner: NOx 

and PM emission reductions achieved prior to 2010 or in excess of the 2010 and 2012 

requirements may be credited to the vessel fleet for later use if a shortfall of emission 

reductions is experienced. In other words, if a fleet fails to meet its emission reduction 

target for a specified period, it can withdraw any credits it may have earned for early or 

excess emission reductions to make up for the shortfall. A fleet can use its emission 

credits toward compliance with its 2010, 2012, and 2017 emission reduction 

requirements. (The 2014 and 2020 requirements must be met; no credits may be 

used.) ARB believes the fleet emission credits will allow the advancement of new 
45 

control technologies by encouraging shipping companies to invest in them in the early 

stages of implementation. 

The Carl Moyer Program and Proposition 1B funding are two sources of financial 

incentives for achieving early emission reductions under the grid-based shore power 

option. Under the Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program, Proposition 1B 

authorizes the Legislature to appropriate $1 billion in bond funding to the Board to 

incent the early reduction of air pollutants and associated health risk from freight 

movement along California’s priority trade corridors. In February 2008, the Board 

established a funding target of $100 million for shore-power and cargo-handling 

projects. Berths that accommodate cargo shipping and will be retrofitted for grid-based 

shore power are eligible for Prop 1B funding. In order to be eligible for funding, 

grid-based shore power must be installed and in operation at least two years prior to a 

regulatory requirement for that technology or level of emissions control. Passenger-ship 

terminals are not eligible to receive funding under this program, since they are not 

involved in goods movement; however, Carl Moyer Program funds are available. 

The Carl Moyer Program is implemented through the cooperative efforts of ARB and the 

local air districts. Shore power projects at terminals or on vessels subject to the 

regulation must be complete and operational no later than January 1, 2011, in order to 

achieve three years of surplus emission reductions and be eligible for Carl Moyer 

funding. 

The three sources of incentives (Carl Moyer funding, Proposition IB funding, and the 

fleet emission credits) are mutually exclusive—that is, applicants may choose only one 

of the options. 

99. Comment: Whatever the ultimate regulatory compliance deadline, there ought 

to be incentives for early action for proven technologies that can reduce hotelling 

emissions by 90 percent or more. (WOEIP) 

Response: ARB has added provisions for establishing and using fleet emission credits 

for early or excess reductions, as discussed above. Although ARB does not believe 

that there are alternative control technologies available now that can reduce hotelling 

emissions by 90 percent, the deployment of such technologies would be eligible if early 

or excess emission reductions are realized. 

100. Comment: Here is an alternative (to staff’s July 12, 2007 draft) that we think is 

preferable. Within a given fleet, all visits where auxiliary engines are not used in 

2008 receive a credit of 1.5 visits against regulatory requirements in a future year 

(for example, 2016). Visits in 2009 that are cleaned up (regardless of whether 

the grid or other options are used) are worth 1.25 visits against the future year 

requirements. If the regulation has no mandatory requirements for 2010, then 

visits in 2010 that are cleaned up receive a credit of one visit against the future 

year. If there is no mandatory requirement for 2011, then visits in 2011 that are 

cleaned up receive a credit of 0.9 visits against the future year. Credits end 

whenever the regulatory requirements start. 
46 

Because of the complimentary auxiliary engine fuel rule, and the drop in hotelling 

emissions starting in 2010, the above approach gets more total reductions than a 

no-incentive approach. We do not believe the record keeping for incentives will 

be too administratively difficult. While we believe that the example provides 

significant incentive for shipping lines to act early, we urge you to get the 

perspective of the shipping lines, and all parties with an interest in the regulation. 

(BAAQMD2) 

Response: As discussed in the response to Comment 85, ARB initially proposed a 

similar incentive approach early in the rule development stage, but ultimately decided 

that such an approach was not appropriate. The emission reductions achieved by the 

regulation will play an essential role in assisting the South Coast Air Basin with meeting 

its 2014 PM2.5 deadline as well as its future ozone deadlines. Instead of deferring 

emission reductions beyond 2014 or 2020, ARB developed an incentive program based 

on fleet emission credits, as described in the previous comments. 

101. Comment: It is particularly disappointing that no early action incentives are 

included considering that development of compliance strategies for AB 32 has 

embraced shore side power as an early action measure. One viable option is to 

commit an allocation of carbon credits such as a fixed price discount relative to 

auction prices to those who install shore power early. (WOEIP) 

Response: The Board identified this regulation as a discrete early action measure for 

reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as required under AB32. Although the 

regulation is primarily aimed at reducing NOx and PM emissions, using grid-based 

shore power instead of operating diesel-fueled auxiliary engines while at berth will result 

in a co-benefit of CO2 emission reductions. The incentives discussed earlier will help 

accelerate the reductions in all hotelling emissions, including GHGs. Regarding carbon 

credits, ARB staff is currently proposing for Board adoption a Scoping Plan that includes 

a cap-and-trade-program. If the Board adopts a Plan that includes a market-based 

system, ARB staff will begin developing the details of that program through a separate 

rulemaking process. 

J. Shore-Power-Equipped Ships 

102. Comment: Some of the terminals have gone ahead and provided for shore 

power. Because of their proactive stance, will all vessels now calling at those 

terminals be required to plug in? I don’t think you want to penalize early 

compliance behavior. I believe that the intent was actually to provide a 

mechanism to develop credits. (PMSA2) 

Response: ARB recognizes that some terminals are already providing shore power or 

will be installing it in the near future in response to a number of efforts already underway 

at the ports. One of these efforts is the San Pedro Ports Clean Air Action Plan, which 

includes a shore power measure for the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. The 
47 

measure’s goal is to have, by fiscal year 2010/2011, at least one berth with shore power 

capability at each of the container- and passenger-ship terminals at the two ports. With 

this infrastructure in place, the plan estimates that about 1,000 ship visits will use shore 

power in fiscal year 2010/2011. Terminals are also installing shore power as a 

condition for expanding operations or renewing leases. ARB expects these conditions 

to include requirements for shore-power visits, such as shore power being used for at 

least some minimum number of ship visits to a terminal per year. 

Regarding the perception that the regulation would penalize these early applications of 

shore power, the commenter is referring to provisions in subsection (d)(1)(I). This 

subsection requires an individual ship that is equipped with shore power capability to 

use shore power whenever it visits a berth equipped to provide compatible shore power, 

regardless of the fleet’s compliance requirements in (d)(1), the Reduced Onboard 

Power compliance option. This requirement would apply only if both the berth can 

provide and the ship can receive the shore power. ARB included this provision because 

of the immediate emission reduction benefits that can be realized from ships connecting 

to grid-based shore power. 

While it is true that no early incentives are available for fleets choosing the Reduced 

Onboard Power option—where the “if you have it, you must use it” shore-power 

requirement is—early shore-power visits can be a mechanism to develop credits under 

the regulation’s Equivalent Emissions Reduction option. Under this option, fleets can 

generate credits in the early stages of implementation that will allow them more 

flexibility with meeting the later emission reduction requirements. Specifically, fleet 

emission credits can be accumulated for emission reductions achieved before or in 

excess of those required by the 2010 requirements and in excess of those required by 

the 2012 requirements. A fleet can use its emission credits toward compliance with its 

2010, 2012, and 2017 emission reduction requirements. Fleets choosing this option 

may decide to use shore-power visits as an early-reduction mechanism to generate 

credits, if one or more of their ships are capable of receiving shore power and visit a 

berth with compatible power. 

K. Early Action Credits and Public Funds 

103. Comment: Early reductions paid for with public funds should not get a double 

benefit of early action credits plus public funds. (WOEIP) 

Response: ARB agrees that recipients of public funds, such as those available through 

Proposition 1B or the Carl Moyer Program, should not also receive the early action 

credits provided in the Equivalent Emissions Reduction option. ARB modified the 

regulation to prohibit such a possibility. Specifically, the modified language states that 

emission reductions that are a result of a project that has received incentive funds 

through a contract or other binding agreement from the ARB or a local air district are not 

eligible emission reductions for fleet emission credits. 
48 

L. Standardization of Shore Power 

104. Comment: The assumption of the regulation seems to be that a commonly 

accepted international standard already exists and provides uniform specification 

for vessels to retrofit that will enable them to access shore power infrastructure at 

all California ports. No international standard or uniform specification exists for 

vessels to retrofit that will enable them to access shore power. All installations to 

date have been done on a case-by-case basis with little to no consideration of 

the ability to use the vessel retrofits at other ports. (PMSA1) 

Response: ARB agrees that there is not yet an international standard for shore power. 

However, the lack of an international standard for shore power does not affect the use 

of shore power at California ports. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have 

developed standards for the implementation of shore power at their ports, including 

identifying service voltage, design load, and specifying design requirements for shore 

power receptacles. To date, one terminal has installed shore power equipment 

conforming to this standard and an additional three terminals will be so equipped by the 

end of 2008. By fiscal year 2010/2011, pursuant to the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air 

Action Plan (CAAP), the two ports will have 25 berths that are shore-power ready that 

will satisfy these design standards. Additionally, as of mid-2008, eight new container 

ships have been built with shore power capability that is compatible with standards of 

the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and 17 existing container and passenger 

vessels have been retrofitted to use shore power compatible with these standards. 

Recognizing the importance of standardizing shore power connection at ports 

throughout the world, the International Organization of Standardization (ISO) formed a 

working group under its Technical Committee 8 (Ships and Marine Technology) to 

develop a standardized shore-to-ship power system. The Port of Los Angeles is a 

member of this working group. The objective is to establish Publicly Available 

Specifications (PAS), which will allow ports and carriers world-wide to refer to an official 

document that provides shore-to-ship power specifications. 

105. Comment: Request that ARB work with foreign and domestic ports, terminals, 

and shippers to help create IMO/ISO standardization for shore power connectors, 

voltages, and related cable management systems. This will help ensure that 

terminals and vessels will standardize power systems in the Pacific Rim ports 

and beyond. (POLA)

Response: ARB agrees and is willing to assist port staff in creating IMO/ISO standards 

for shore power. 

M. Building Grid Infrastructure

106. Comment: It is unclear who is responsible for supplying the dock infrastructure. 

The terminal operator is required to complete a plan, but the regulation does not 
49 

identify who will be financially or physically responsible for installing and 

maintaining the shore power infrastructure. (CLIA) 

Response: The regulation requires the vessel fleets to reduce their auxiliary-engine 

emissions while docked. Unless the emissions reductions can be achieved solely 

through onboard technologies, these fleets cannot meet these goals without 

shore-power infrastructure or shore-based equipment being added to the terminals that 

these fleets visit. The regulation does not identify which entities are responsible for the 

installation of this shore-based equipment. ARB considered putting such specific 

requirements into the regulation, but the affected ports differ from one another in that 

some are landlord ports—that is, the ports lease the terminals to terminal operators 

through contractual agreements—while other ports are the terminal operators 

themselves. Ultimately, ARB decided that the regulation should not mandate the 

responsibility for installing shore-side equipment and that the goals of this regulation will 

only be satisfied if the affected entities cooperate with each other. For example, the 

timely installation of shore-power infrastructure depends upon the cooperation between 

the local utility, the port, the terminal, and the ship fleet operator. ARB believes that 

there is a strong, business-related incentive for these partners to accommodate the 

needs of the vessel fleets that call on California ports. The regulation allows the 

affected parties to work cooperatively to achieve the goals of the regulation. 

107. Comment: Transformers and any frequency converters must be ashore as 

these are large pieces of equipment that could not reasonable be placed onboard 

a passenger ship. The need for on-dock shore power equipment for passenger 

ships should be specifically recognized in the regulations. (CLIA) 

Response: ARB disagrees that the regulation should explicitly recognize the need for 

on-dock shore power equipment for passenger ships. The regulation is not 

technologically prescriptive. The details for the necessary infrastructure improvements 

and ship modifications to implement shore power are left to the cruise lines and the 

terminals at which the vessels call. ARB notes that for the purposes of estimating the 

cost effectiveness of the regulation on passenger ships, ARB included the cost of a 

shore-side transformer at the passenger terminals. Finally, Carl Moyer funds are 

available for the installation of these shore-side transformers at passenger terminals. 

The Ports of San Francisco and San Diego have been awarded such funds. 

N. Cost of Grid-based Shore Power 

108. Comment: By favoring one particular technological solution over another, this 

rule will impose a severe financial hardship on the Port without providing a 

substantial incremental benefit in the air quality situation in our neighboring 

communities. (POAKLAND1) 

Response: ARB disagrees that one particular technical solution is favored over the 

other. The regulation provides flexibility in achieving its emission reduction goals. 

Please see the discussion of the options in response to Comments 28-84. 
50 

109. Comment: We have been made aware that the Port of Oakland and other 

container ports in California have consistently raised concerns about the high 

cost of utility-based shore power for ports that either lack sufficient electrical 

infrastructure or in some cases power supply to support the additional electrical 

demand created by shore power loads. The new demand created by utilitybased shore power may fall during times of peak electrical load which would 

stress that system at the Port of Oakland and in the larger service area. We are 

concerned the cost may cause terminal operators and shipping lines to 

consolidate their operations elsewhere thereby weakening the Port’s competitive 

position. (OMCC) 

Response: ARB is aware that, if the terminal operators at the Port of Oakland—

working with the carriers who visit those terminals—choose shore-based grid power to 

meet the requirements of the regulation, additional electrical infrastructure will be 

needed in and around the port. This is also true of the Ports of Long Beach and San 

Diego. 

The regulation does not require shore power; other alternative technologies to reduce 

emissions from vessels that are docked at the berths are allowed. Nevertheless, since 

many vessels visiting the Port of Oakland will be shore-power capable (because they 

will be using shore power at the Ports of Long Beach or Los Angeles), ARB determined 

that shore power is a cost-effective approach to compliance at the Port of Oakland, as 

elucidated in Chapter X of the TSD. 

110. Comment: The electrical infrastructure to support the traditional method of cold 

ironing at the Port of Oakland simply does not exist with the electrical system 

already operating at or near capacity during peak demand times. The cost of 

creating the additional substations and conveyance for the power needed to 

support cold-ironing in Oakland would exceed $90 million. (POAKLAND1, 

OMCC) 

111. Comment: We have serious concerns over any rule that would mandate a 

power-grid-only shore power requirement. Grid shore power in Oakland is 

estimated to cost $90 million and, comparing it to the annual maritime revenues 

of approximately $120 million, would create severe hardship. Also, the Port is 

currently in debt $1.5 million due to previous improvements to terminals. It will 

be difficult to recover these costs through tariffs in lease agreements, as our 

position as a discretionary port of call requires us to provide the most costeffective services to continue to deliver economic benefits to local, regional, and 

state economies. (POAKLAND2) 

Response: Please also see response to the previous comment. Although the 

regulation does not mandate grid-based shore power, ARB is aware that compliance 

with the regulation will require extensive capital investment. Nevertheless, the health 

benefits derived from reducing the exposure to the nearby communities from the 
51 

emissions from vessels docked at ports are substantial, making the regulation both 

cost-effective and health-protective. ARB believes that the $90 million estimated cost to 

support cold-ironing at the Port of Oakland is a reasonable estimate and is consistent 

with the $80 million estimate in Chapter X of the TSD. PG&E stated that they have 

sufficient electrical capacity to provide power to the Port for shore power, but the 

infrastructure to deliver the power must be constructed. ARB illustrated in the TSD that 

shore power is cost effective at the Port of Oakland when shore-power capable vessels 

make calls at the Port. In addition, funding is available through the Proposition 1B 

Program to help reduce the costs for compliance. 

112. Comment: The infrastructure contemplated is enormously expensive with most 

recent estimates exceeding $1.8 billion. There are no funds to build it and no 

public appetite for public funding of projects of this magnitude. Grid solution will 

require expensive retrofits on ships that will be incompatible with other 

technologies worldwide driving businesses away from CA ports. (CAL1) 

Response: ARB disagrees that the regulation will cause vessels to discontinue calling 

on California ports because of the expense of compliance. ARB estimated in Chapter X 

of the TSD that the $1.8 billion compliance cost would represent $25 - $40 per container 

for the container-ship carriers (less than five percent of the typical value of the goods in 

the containers) and would add 15 percent to the cost of a typical cruise. Shore power is 

already required for many passenger-ship visits in Alaska and Seattle, and the Ports of 

Los Angeles and Long Beach have committed to using shore power extensively to 

reduce emissions from docked vessels, as stated in their Clean Air Action Plan. 

O. Availability of Grid Power 

113. Comment: There is ample power available for shore power, and there are 

12 power plants currently being planned that were initially approved by the 

AQMD this summer and several solar power plants being approved in the Inland 

Empire. (IBEW) 

Response: ARB agrees that there is ample power available to meet the requirements 

of the regulation, even if grid-based shore power is selected as the compliance path by 

all of the affected vessel fleets. 

ARB determined that the estimated potential peak load of 205 megawatts and the 

potential annual electrical use of 643 Gigawatt-hours for shore power by 2020 will 

represent less than one-quarter of one percent of the State’s overall annual power 

consumption, based on the projected power consumption information in the most recent 

Integrated Energy Policy Report from the California Energy Commission. Furthermore, 

the four electrical utilities affected by the regulation—Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), 

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), Southern California Edison 

(SCE), and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDGE)—confirmed with ARB that they all had 

adequate electricity supplies for shore power. 
52 

114. Comment: Grid-power is at or near capacity right now and no new generation is 

planned to offset this new demand. Early implementations will require additional 

peak power to be brought on-line to supply the demand and this power is dirty 

power. Infrastructure to provide power to berth will take years to install and will 

be delayed due to litigation. (CAL1) 

115. Comment: The presumptive solution of port electrification is flawed. Costs are 

staggering (estimated to be $1.2 billion statewide) and electrifying a port means 

years of construction to install infrastructure to receive electrical power that is not 

available. There are no plans or budgets to build new generation capacity to 

supply this power. (LAPEER) 

Response: ARB disagrees. As mentioned above, the four affected electrical utilities 

have all indicated that they have sufficient electricity supply to meet the requirements of 

the regulation, even assuming that all of the vessel fleets choose grid-based shore 

power as their compliance path. 

ARB understands that additional electrical infrastructure, including transmission lines, 

will have to be constructed to bring the electricity to the terminals at some of the ports. 

The electrical utilities have been working with the ports to provide the necessary 

electrical infrastructure in a timely fashion to meet the requirements of the regulation. 

SCE and LADWP have publicly guaranteed sufficient power to the Ports of Long Beach 

and Los Angeles, respectively. 

116. Comment: The grid is not the gold standard and existing technologies are 

available that are as clean and in many cases cleaner than the grid. It is 

impossible to know what the grid emissions footprint is as it varies by time of 

year, day, and load pocket. (CAL1) 

Response: ARB concurs that emissions related to electricity generation varies 

temporally and geographically, and as a practical matter, cannot be estimated in real 

time. Nevertheless, if the electricity supplied to the ports is considered “marginal 

electricity,” that is the power is assumed to be added to the grid at the time of the 

demand, some simplifying assumptions can be made. 

According to the four electrical utilities providing power to the ports, the source of 

marginal electricity is typically combined-cycle gas turbines (CCGTs). Electricity from 

coal-fired plants, hydroelectric dams, solar and wind sources, and nuclear plants are all 

part of the baseload electrical demand, as is a significant amount of natural-gas-fired 

electricity. Additional electrical demand—the “marginal” demand—is typically from more 

natural-gas-fired equipment: CCGTs. This CCGT assumption is shared by the 

California Energy Commission (CEC), the California Public Utilities Commission 

(CPUC), and the AB 32 Climate Action Team Economics Subgroup, as discussed in 

Chapter IX of the TSD. 
53 

Even considering this consensus position on the sources of marginal electricity 

generation, ARB offered a range of potential GHG emission reductions in the TSD. In 

any case, the grid-based electricity emits less GHG emissions per unit of power than 

the auxiliary engines on the vessels. ARB believes that an alternative source of 

electrical power, such as distributed generation, should be GHG-equivalent to the grid. 

Finally, ARB recognizes that the grid will be getting cleaner over time as AB 32 

requirements take effect on the electricity sector.

P. Provision to Address Shore Power Not Available at Port by 2014 

117. Comment: Include a provision in the regulation to delay implementation for each 

port that is not equipped to provide shore power. As written, industry would have 

to use shore power beginning in 2014, even if it is unavailable at a port of call. 

(CLIA) 

Response: The four electrical utilities serving the four ports at which passenger ships 

call (San Francisco, Los Angeles, Long Beach, and San Diego) have stated that they 

will be able to provide sufficient power to the ports for compliance with the regulation. 

ARB understands that adequate time is necessary to design, approve, and construct the 

electrical infrastructure required to accommodate the vessels calling on California’s 

ports, which is why ARB chose 2014 as the first performance standard for those 

choosing to use grid-based shore power. Many commenters wanted an earlier 

compliance date, but ARB believes that the 2014 date in the regulation is reasonable for 

all 31 affected terminals to have shore power installed if they chose that compliance 

path. 

Q. Adjustments for Grid-Power Interruption 

118. Comment: There should be a variance or some exemption if the grid is actually 

interrupted or not able to provide the power. If there is interruption by something 

outside of the ship or terminal operators’ control, they should be given a pass. 

(DW) 

119. Comment: There are parallel efforts going with greenhouse gas, with CARB and 

the PUC, which deals with the electric market, not only how we can collectively 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but how we can improve reliability of the grid. 

ARB should consider, on occasion when there is a grid emergency or stage one 

or two alerts where it was facing rolling blackouts, that suppliers of grid power are 

allowed to interrupt that supply and allow the ships to power up for a brief few 

hours; maybe a few hours per year. That would help improve resource adequacy 

as well as part of the utilities response measure. That’s something to consider 

down the road as something that the California ISO would very much welcome. 

(DW) 
54 

120. Comment: If the utility cannot provide power to the ship through no fault of the 

ship’s operator, it should not be penalized for the failure by the power utility. That 

should not be counted in the overall compliance. (PMSA2) 

Response: ARB agrees that there should be adjustments to a fleet’s compliance 

requirements when there is interruption to grid power during a ship’s visit. At the Board 

hearing, the Board directed staff to modify the regulation to ensure a fleet is not 

penalized when a ship is unable to shut down auxiliary engines and connect to 

grid-based shore power when at berth because of an emergency event beyond the 

vessel’s control. Staff addressed the Board’s concern by making several changes to 

the regulation. 

The definition of emergency event has been modified to include a more comprehensive 

list of events where the utility may be unable to provide power to the port. These events 

now include the period of time when the utility cannot provide power because of a 

transmission or distribution emergency, must reduce grid-based shore power to the port 

because of a natural disaster such as an earthquake or fire, or must reduce grid-based 

power to the port in response to the California Independent System Operator or the Los 

Angeles Department of Water and Power declaring a Stage 3 emergency or to avoid a 

Stage 3 emergency if one is anticipated. 

In addition, the regulation includes provisions in the Reduced Onboard Power and 

Equivalent Emissions Reduction compliance options to allow for adjustments to a fleet’s 

compliance requirements for visits meeting the definition of emergency event. 

Fleets choosing the Reduced Onboard Power option must shut down the onboard 

auxiliary engines during a certain percentage of their vessels’ visits to a port and supply 

the power to the vessels by some other means, most likely grid-based shore power. 

Furthermore, the fleets must also reduce their onboard electrical generation by the 

same percentage. For example, by 2014, vessel fleets choosing the Reduced Onboard 

Power option must shut down their auxiliary engines for 50 percent of their visits and 

reduce their fleet’s onboard electrical power generation by 50 percent. The regulation 

now specifically allows visits experiencing an emergency event to be counted as a 

shore-power visit. Furthermore, the onboard electrical generation that would have been 

reduced during the visit is removed from the fleet’s baseline generation. In other words, 

the visit counts as a shore-power visit for the fleet, but the required reduction of onboard 

electrical generation is forgiven for emergency events. 

Fleets choosing the Equivalent Emissions Reduction compliance option must reduce 

the at-berth auxiliary engine emissions from their vessels’ visits to a port by certain 

percentages. The fleets may choose grid-based shore power, non-grid-based shore 

power (distributed generation), or other ship-side or shore-side control techniques to 

reduce at-berth emissions. This option also includes a calculation formula a fleet must 

use to demonstrate compliance with the emission reduction requirements. The formula 

requires fleets to determine their vessels’ at-berth emissions at the port before and after 

application of the alternative control technique(s). Comparison of the two cases defines 
55 

the percent emissions reduction achieved for the applicable compliance period. ARB 

modified the regulation to now allow the auxiliary engine emissions from visits 

experiencing an emergency event to be excluded from both the fleet’s baseline and 

post-baseline emission reduction calculations, similar to the provision in the Reduced 

Onboard Power option. 

R. 3 - 5 Hour Limit on Operating Auxiliary Engines 

121. Comment: As the regulation is currently written, ships are given three to five 

hours within docking to power down their auxiliary engines. While some flexibility 

is needed in allowing the ships to safely connect, ARB can encourage operators 

to hook up as soon as safely possible in order to protect public health. Require 

ships to power down auxiliary engines as soon as safely practicable instead of 

allowing a blanket 3-5 hours that is likely only rarely necessary. (ENVORG3)

122. Comment: Allowing for three hours before switching to shore power seems 

unreasonable and unjustified. Instead, ships should be required to plug in to 

shore power as quickly as practicable. (WOEIP) 

Response: ARB disagrees. ARB believes the three- and five-hour limits to connect 

and disconnect a ship from shore are reasonable. The Reduced Onboard Generation 

option of the regulation allows three hours of auxiliary engine operating time for ships 

that use synchronous power transfer systems and five hours of auxiliary engine 

operating time for ships that do not use synchronous power transfer systems. 

For the typical ship visit, after the ship is tied to the berth, the ship and the ship’s crew 

are subject to inspection by the Department of Homeland Security. Until the ship is 

cleared by the department, the port’s labor cannot board the ship and the ship’s crew 

cannot leave the ship. Any shore power equipment cannot be brought on board the 

ship or equipment on the ship cannot be accessed until the ship is given clearance by 

the Department of Homeland Security. The inspection typically takes an hour, and the 

ship’s auxiliary engines are operating during this time. After the ship receives 

clearance, the necessary connection between the shore and the ship can be completed. 

Once connected, the ship’s power source can then be switched from ship-based power 

to grid-based power. The auxiliary engines are shut down for the rest of the ship’s visit 

until the ship is nearly ready to leave port. The movement of equipment, connecting of 

cables, and power transfer is expected to take about an hour. Before the ship leaves 

the berth, the reverse procedure will take place: auxiliary engines are turned back on, 

the ship switches back to ship-based power, and the cables are disconnected and, if 

necessary, returned to the shore. This, too, is expected to take an hour for vessels 

using synchronous power transfer systems. Therefore, for these ships, the auxiliary 

engines are likely to operate the first two hours of the ship’s visit and the last hour of the 

ship’s visit. 

A ship that does not use synchronous power transfer systems will experience a total 

loss of power. Very few ships will be using non-synchronous power transfer systems; 
56 

consequently, nearly all the ships using shore power will be limited to three hours of 

operating time for a visit to a California port. In the case of power transfers that do not 

use synchronous power transfer systems, the regulation allows five hours because the 

resulting loss of power during the power transfer process disables the ship’s navigation 

system. Three hours is needed at the end of the ship’s visit to restore the navigation 

system. 

For vessel fleets that choose to use grid-based shore power to comply with the 

Equivalent Emissions Reduction option, they have a built-in incentive to connect to 

shore power as quickly as practicable. This option requires auxiliary engine emissions 

to be reduced by specific amounts (e.g., 10 percent, 25 percent, 50 percent, etc.). To 

maximize emission reductions while in port, the vessels will want to be plugged in for as 

long as possible. As long as the auxiliary engines are operating, no emission 

reductions are taking place. 

S. Other Alternative Technologies 

123. Comment: Other technologies should also be considered as a means to 

achieve shorter term reductions to complement the use of shore power such as 

the” Bonnet” technology being tested in Long Beach that captures smokestack 

exhaust at the dock and cleans it with onshore SCR technology. (ENVORG 2) 

124. Comment: We are not against cold-ironing, but it is a shore-based technology 

that does not travel with the vessel. As a global carrier, we want a solution that 

stays with the vessel. We have put an SCR unit on a vessel. We have waste 

heat recovery on a ship that captures the heat out of the smoke stack and puts it 

back into energy to drive the vessel. We are currently working on an electronic 

scrubbing device but need time to get this technology up and running. There is a 

timing issue on how fast we can clean up the environment. (MAERSK) 

125. Comment: We support the use of shore power and other proven technologies 

as a supplement to shore power. (IBEW) 

Response: The Equivalent Emissions Reduction option of the regulation allows the 

use of alternative technologies, whether shore-side or ship-based. Please see 

response to Comments 28-84 for a more detailed discussion of this compliance option. 

T. Distributed Generation 

126. Comment: There are conflicting definitions of portable power generation 

equipment under the Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) versus 

the regulation. The regulation inappropriately treats equipment that is properly 

registered under the PERP program as distributed generation (meaning 

stationary). The CARB staff arbitrarily imposes a new definition by requiring 

physical movement between air districts as an absolute pre-condition for the 

designation as “portable.” (CAL1) 
57 

127. Comment: We do not agree that the Wittmar System generator is distributed 

generation. The generator is registered in and in full compliance with CARB’s 

PERP program. If classified as distributed generation, the generator is subject to 

unreasonable emission levels for a mobile application and has a negative effect 

on its mobility. Classify the system as PERP equipment. (PGE1) 

Response: Under the Equivalent Emissions Reduction option, fleets can use non-gridbased shore power equipment, such as a shore-side generator, to meet emission 

reduction requirements. For purposes of this regulation, it is irrelevant whether this nongrid-based shore power equipment is classified as portable equipment or distributed 

generation (the regulation refers to this technology as “distributed generation”). Shore 

power generated from a source other than the grid must meet emission standards 

specified in the regulation. 

128. Comment: ARB should specifically consider the successful demonstration 

project at the Port of Oakland where a shore-side generator operating on natural 

gas was used to supply on-board electricity as a viable alternative. This 

technology should be built into the regulation as an option if proven to achieve 

significant verified emissions reductions. We were a strong supporter of the pilot 

project and the public funding from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

that was invested to complete the proof of concept. (FOE1) 

129. Comment: Senator Perata supports the use of mobile, distributed generation 

technologies to provide shore-side power to ocean-going vessels at the Port of 

Oakland. The benefit of this strategy is its potential to be deployed quickly, 

achieving important emission reductions sooner than could be achieved if the 

Port and its tenants simply wait for grid power to be available to shippers calling 

at the port. (PERATA) 

130. Comment: The Port of Oakland successfully demonstrated a shore-side 

generator that will be operated on natural gas in a pilot project to demonstrate its 

feasibility and environmental impacts. This technology should be considered as 

an option if proven to achieve significant verified emission reductions particularly 

as an interim solution until electric infrastructure is widely available at ports and 

terminals. (ENVORG2) 

131. Comment: We support proven and viable pathways to immediate emission 

reductions through the use of alternative technologies such as low-emission 

dockside generators which have shown to deliver comparable and immediate 

emissions reductions benefits to grid-based power. (BCLAC1, ENVORG1) 

132. Comment: All viable and proven technologies that reduce dockside emissions 

need to be considered and encouraged in the regulation in order to achieve 

immediate reductions. (FOE1) 
58 

133. Comment: ARB should help monitor the air emissions benefits of alternative 

shore-side power technologies as means to achieve more immediate emissions 

reductions and complement the use of shore power. (ENVORG2) 

Response: The regulation allows the use of all emission reduction strategies, including 

the shore-side generator that was demonstrated at the Port of Oakland. At this time, 

however, the shore-side generator and other potential alternative technologies are still 

at the “proof of concept” stage of development. For example, the Port of Oakland 

demonstration proved that a shore-side generator can be used to supply power to a 

ship through the ship’s bow-thruster system. However, to be used on a commercial 

basis, there are a number of technical issues that need to be resolved, including: 

limited space availability at the dock, the ability of the shore-side generator to provide all 

the necessary onboard power requirements (so that the ship’s auxiliary engines can be 

shut down completely), and the need to retrofit ships to use the power provided by the 

shore-side generator on a more routine basis. 

In addition, as discussed in responses to Comments 28-84, the use of shore-side 

generators as an interim solution adds significant costs to reducing at-berth emissions. 

These added costs would likely delay the implementation of grid-based shore power by 

diverting both technical resources and capital. 

134. Comment: PG&E has been an important part of the effort to use liquefied 

natural gas for mobile shore-side power generators developed by Wittmar Cold 

Ironing and we believe this system offers many benefits to the Port of Oakland 

and West Oakland community. A demonstration completed on July 18th of this 

year, on the 800-foot container ship APL China reduced NOx emissions by 

89 percent, PM10 by 99 percent, SOx by 100 percent, and CO2 by 50 percent. 

The Port of Oakland has made it clear that they cannot afford to pay for grid 

extensions, estimated at $90 million, and prefer the Wittmar system. Under the 

right conditions, the Port could cold-iron every ship call with the Wittmar system 

by 2010. (PGE1) 

135. Comment: The cold ironing demonstration at the APL terminal showed the 

following reductions can be achieved tomorrow: NOx - 98 percent, 

CO - 57 percent, PM10 - 100 percent, SOx - 100 percent, and CO2 - 42 percent. 

(WOEIP) 

136. Comment: Sound Energy Solutions is a proponent for LNG-fueled on-dock 

power generation as a technology that is available today and has emission rates 

that are comparable to grid-based power. (SES) 

137. Comment: The demonstration of the distributed power generation system 

technology in Oakland has shown that this technology delivers comparable 

emission reductions benefits to those derived from grid power at a substantially 

lower cost. These types of alternatives would be highly preferable to installing a 

grid-based power system at the port. (POAKLAND1) 
59 

Response: ARB agrees that there are air quality benefits that can result from replacing 

the power provided by the ship’s auxiliary engines with power from a clean shore-side 

generator. However, the estimates provided by the commenters represent the case 

where the ship’s auxiliary engines are shut down and the power provided by the shoreside generator provides all the necessary power needed by the ship. The overall 

benefits are significantly reduced when the emissions from the auxiliary engines are 

taken into account while the shore-side generator is being connected and disconnected 

from the ship—activities that usually take a total of three hours—and if the auxiliary 

engines must continue to operate, even at reduced load, because the shore-side 

generator is unable to provide all the necessary power for the vessel. 

The impact of the three-hour connection and disconnection time can reduce the 

emissions benefit provided by using shore-side generators by six to fifteen percent. 

Furthermore, the shore-side generator used in the demonstration was rated at 

800 kilowatts (kW). Although ARB understands that the commercial unit may be able to 

provide more power, the power demand for a typical container ship is one megawatt 

(MW) and can be as high as 5 MW if the ship is carrying refrigerated containers. In this 

case, the generator would only be able to offset 20 percent of the electrical power 

needed by the ship, achieving only 20 percent air quality benefit. 

ARB believes that it is premature to consider using shore-side generators to provide 

electricity for all ships visiting a port. As discussed above, the use of a shore-side 

generator to replace a portion of a ship’s electrical power demand has reached the 

proof of concept stage. There are a number of issues that need to be resolved and 

additional demonstrations before the technology would be considered commercially 

ready. Once the technology is considered commercially ready, then it is appropriate to 

consider more wide-scale deployment of the technology. 

Finally, ARB disagrees that the emissions benefits from using shore-side generators are 

comparable to the emission benefits resulting from grid based shore power. See 

discussion below. 

U. Emission Standards for Distributed Generation 

138. Comment: Current language effectively penalizes available alternative 

technologies by placing onerous exhaust control limits on these technologies in 

later years. The control mechanisms to achieve these levels do not yet exist. 

This creates an uneven playing field by placing artificial burden on one category 

of solutions without corresponding down-year requirements for grid power. This 

guarantees retarding any advancement in alternative technologies including 

renewable energy sources. (CAL1) 

139. Comment: For the South Coast Air Basin, alternative technologies proposed to 

achieve the emission reduction target should be best available control technology 

(BACT). Although the District supports alternatives, they believe that these 
60 

sources must meet a maximum allowable NOx limit that is more in line with the 

grid power NOx limits and consistent with local stationary source regulations for 

internal combustion engines or boilers. Specifically, revise (d)(2)(E) to require 

NOx emissions for non-grid-based shore power equipment to be no greater than 

0.2 g/kW-hr before Jan. 1, 2014, and no greater than 0.03 g/kW-hr beginning 

January 1, 2014. The 0.03 g/kW-hr standard is the average utility base level now 

and will be in the district’s local rule that will be going before its Board in 

January [2008]. The district believes the above standards can be met after 2014. 

(SCAQMD1, SCAQMD2) 

140. Comment: Add a BACT requirement as SCAQMD requested. (CCA,

ENVORG3) 

Response: ARB disagrees that emission limits for distributed generation (DG) will 

penalize available alternative technologies by placing onerous exhaust control limits on 

these technologies in later years. 

The regulation requires, prior to January 1, 2014, that non-grid-based power sources 

satisfy a NOx emission standard of 2.0 grams per kilowatt-hour (g/kW-Hr), which is the 

emission standard for a newly manufactured spark-ignited off-road engine. This 

standard is necessary to ensure the use of clean engines for DG. For comparison, the 

average NOx emission rate from the grid, on a statewide basis, is 0.13 g/kW-Hr. ARB 

recognizes that the emissions from the grid are variable on a seasonal and daily basis; 

however, the power supplied from the grid to the ports is likely to be generated by a 

natural-gas combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT). NOx emissions from CCGTs are 

typically 0.02 g/kW-Hr, cleaner still than the statewide grid average. (See Comment 

116 for a more detailed discussion on power generation for shore power.) 

By January 1, 2014, the regulation requires shore-side generators to satisfy a more 

stringent NOx emission standard of 0.2 g/kW-Hr, which is equivalent to a spark-ignited 

engine using Best Available Control Technology (BACT). The application of BACT 

reduces NOx emissions by an order of magnitude. Even at this level, however, the 

shore-side generator would be 50 percent higher than the average NOx emissions from 

the grid when the requirements of the regulation are fully implemented or about 

10 times higher than the emissions from a natural gas combined-cycle power plant. 

ARB believes that the BACT emission level for NOx is appropriate for distributed 

generation; however, ARB deferred the BACT standard for four years (from 2010 to 

2014) so that the shore-side generators could be deployed early and would result in 

emission reductions much sooner than a grid-based option. A liquid-natural-gas-fueled 

engine not using BACT is still much cleaner than the diesel-fueled auxiliary engines on 

the ships. These engines typically emit 85 percent less NOx emissions than the vessel’s 

auxiliary engines and do not emit any diesel PM. However, since the auxiliary engines 

on the vessels will be running for some period of time before switching to DG power, the 

overall efficiency for NOx reduction will be closer 70 to 80 percent, with diesel PM 

reduction at 85 to 95 percent. 
61 

We disagree that the 2010 and 2014 emission standards should be lowered to 

0.2 g/kW-hr and 0.03 g/kW-hr, respectively. The 0.03 g/kW-hr NOx limit is equivalent to 

the emissions from a well-controlled combined cycle power plant. These standards, if 

implemented, would discourage, if not prohibit, the development and use of non-grid 

based power generation to reduce at-berth ship emissions. ARB recognizes, however, 

that local air districts can set more stringent emission limits for this equipment. 

141. Comment: Relying on alternative technologies while following the path to gridbased shore power would potentially double the cost of emission reduction 

strategies. It would also strain the resources of the port’s engineering staff to 

meet the near-term and long-term cold-ironing solutions. (POLB1, POLB2) 

142. Comment: While the Port of Long Beach envisions that alternatives to gridbased power have an important place in reducing emission from ships, this 

technology is not currently mature, cannot meet the power needs of many 

vessels, and will be most suitable for vessels not targeted by the proposed 

regulation such as bulk ships. (POLB1, POLB2) 

143. Comment: No technology has been demonstrated that meets the requirements 

of the proposed regulation. Currently available technologies, which are being 

investigated, have either insufficient capacity for the vessel loads envisioned at 

our facilities and/or require significant infrastructure improvements similar to the 

grid-based shore power system. (POLB2) 

144. Comment: A disadvantage of distributed generation systems is that they require 

significant amount of space on the wharf adjacent to the vessel. As a result, the 

proposed technology would not eliminate the need for infrastructure or save time. 

The Port does not have the space in front of quay cranes for the equipment and 

would need to locate it in terminal backlands with the necessary trenching and 

wharf improvements at the berth. (POLB1, POLB2) 

Response: ARB agrees that it would be too costly and burdensome to include 

requirements that would essentially mandate the installation of both shore power 

equipment and interim alternatives in order for a fleet to comply with the regulation. 

ARB estimates that installing an alternative technology system in addition to a 

grid-based shore-power system would double the cost of compliance. For example, 

ARB estimated it would cost $125 million to install shore power infrastructure at the 

Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles in order for terminals to satisfy their fleet’s 2014 

shore-power visits requirements. If these fleets were also required to comply with a 

20 percent emission reduction by 2010 and 40 percent reduction by 2014, ARB 

estimates the cost to comply with these reductions using distributed generation would 

be $150 million, assuming the use of distributed generation would cost $1,000 per hour. 
62 

V. Quantifying Emission Reduction Claims for Alternative Technologies 

145. Comment: Alternative controls through the regulation’s Emission Reduction 

Option provision must be limited to viable strategies, guarantee equivalent 

emission reductions and be subject to public review. The current regulation does 

not propose sufficient criteria for determining which alternative strategies would 

provide quantifiable and enforceable emission reductions and would benefit 

nearby communities as well as regional air quality. (BCLAC1, ENVORG2) 

Responses: ARB shares the commenters’ concern that the reductions resulting from 

the use of alternative control techniques must be quantifiable and enforceable. The 

ARB has years of experience in the review of various emission reduction strategies to 

ensure that the strategies are viable. Some of the recent programs where ARB staff 

has reviewed emission reduction strategies include the Distributed Generation 

Certification Program, where the emission rate of the equipment must be certified to 

emission standards, and the Equipment Pre-Certification Program, where the claims of 

a product manufacturer must be supported by emission measurement data. The 

requirements in the regulation to ensure that the alternative control techniques are 

quantifiable and enforceable are based on this collective experience. 

Specific to this regulation, there are a number of safeguards to ensure that the emission 

reductions are quantifiable and enforceable. These safeguards include the following: 

1) establishing control factors using approved emission measurement techniques; 

2) requiring annual statements of compliance for each fleet, including emission 

information for each ship; 3) requiring recordkeeping for each ship in the fleet, including 

identifying technology and control factor used, and records of equipment failure or 

malfunction; and 4) reserving the right of ARB to request additional source testing or 

other type of monitoring. Some of this information may be considered confidential; ARB 

will make information available upon request as allowed under the Public Records Act 

(Government Code section 6250 et seq.). 

W. Alternative Emission Reduction Measurement

146. Comment: Shore power provides a means of measuring emission reductions. 

With the electric meters, every megawatt-hour or kilowatt-hour actually measures 

so many pounds or tons of emission reduction. Staff should encourage as part of 

the implementation, which may be a later phase, the use of metered delivery of 

power, whether it’s from distributed generation or from the grid itself, to measure 

the tons reduced of NOx, PM, and CO2. (DW) 

Response: ARB concurs that electricity use is an acceptable surrogate for estimating 

emissions, which is why the regulation requires onboard power generation to be 

reduced as well as requiring vessel visits to use shore power. The regulation requires 

each affected terminal to keep records of utility billing statements for terminals where 

shore power utilization is monitored separately from the electrical power usage of the 

other activities at the terminal. Although this information alone cannot be used to 
63 

directly determine if the fleet is complying with the regulation, it is an essential 

component of compliance determination. 

X. Baseline Fleet Emission Calculations

147. Comment: Commenter is interested in how the rule will accurately and 

reasonable calculate baseline fleet emissions for new/expanding shipping 

activities that might occur after rule is in effect. How will new fleets to Oakland in 

the future be able to calculate reasonable emission reduction targets when 

baseline emissions are essentially zero now? (POAKLAND2) 

Response: The baseline in the regulation does not refer to past operational history, but 

instead refers to a fleet’s operation without the use of emission control techniques for 

the compliance period. The baseline refers to the “before controls” case and the postbaseline refers to the “after controls” case. Comparison of the two cases defines the 

percent reduction achieved for that compliance period. 

For the Reduced Onboard Power Generation option, the baseline refers to the power 

requirements of the fleet over the compliance period. The reduction of onboard power 

generation is determined by comparing the actual power produced by the auxiliary 

engines to the baseline power usage for the entire fleet during the applicable 

compliance period. For the Equivalent Emission Reduction Option, the baseline refers 

to the fleet’s emissions over the compliance period, with no implementation of emission 

reduction techniques other than cleaner fuels mandated by the auxiliary engine fuel 

regulation. The emissions reduction is determined by comparing the emissions of the 

fleet, after implementation of strategies to reduce emissions, to the fleet’s baseline 

emissions for the applicable compliance period. The applicable compliance period, as 

defined in the regulation, is a calendar quarter for applicable requirements on 

January 1, 2014 and later, and a calendar year for all applicable requirements prior to 

January 1, 2014. 

148. Comment: We are concerned that this provision, as written, may create a 

significant loophole. The suggested use of statewide fleet averages is 

specifically troubling as an alternative control strategy given the difficulty to 

enforce them and the likelihood for disproportionate emission impacts on local 

communities. CARB should remove the proposal for the use of statewide fleet 

averages under the Emission Reduction Option. CARB should exclude 

operational controls (e.g. shorter ship visits, lower auxiliary engine loads while at 

dock, etc.) from meeting the requirements of the Emissions Reduction Option. 

Only measures that are verifiable, reproducible, and enforceable should be 

permitted to satisfy this provision. (BCLAC1, ENVORG2) 

Response: ARB agrees that fleet averaging, while providing flexibility for compliance, 

is also more challenging to enforce. To ensure that the fleets are complying with the 

regulation, the fleet operators will be required to file vessel plans that identify the types 

of controls used on each ship; file annual compliance statements that include detailed 
64 

information on compliance for the entire fleet; and keep records for each ship, including 

the ship’s emissions and technology used to reduce the ship’s emissions.

Additionally, the regulation does not allow the use of statewide fleet averages—fleets 

are port-specific. That is, a company that has ships visiting the Ports of Los Angeles 

and Oakland would have two fleets: one fleet for those ships visiting Los Angeles and 

another fleet for those ships visiting the Oakland. By defining fleets in this manner, 

emission reductions are required at both locations. There should not be any 

disproportionate emission impacts on local communities. 

Finally, the procedures for determining compliance with the regulation does not allow 

any credit for operational controls, such as shorter ship visits or lower auxiliary engine 

loads. As discussed in response to Comments 118-120, power reductions or emission 

reductions are based on comparing the baseline scenario, which represents the case 

where no emission reduction techniques would have been applied, to the case where 

the vessels’ emissions are reduced with emission reduction techniques. Additionally, 

the emission reduction techniques must be quantifiable, enforceable, and the reductions 

repeatable from visit to visit. 

Y. Test Methods 

149. Comment: The emission measurement method for diesel PM in 

section (f)(4)(B)3 should allow CARB Test Method 5 or U.S. EPA Reference 

method 5 and 202. Accepted CARB standard methods should be utilized to 

provide consistency in PM measurements. The ISO 8178 Test Methods 

needlessly require a dilution tunnel, 5 stable test modes, and a different 

temperature (125o

 F) defining PM. Auxiliary engine exhaust stack diameters and 

gas velocity are normally within the range to allow standard isokinetic PM 

sampling. (ERM) 

Response: ARB agrees. ARB added a provision in the regulation that allows the 

flexibility of using alternative test methods upon the written approval from the Executive 

Officer. This provision is found in section (e)(4)(B)(3) of the regulation. 

Z. Terminal Plans and Affected Terminals

150. Comment: The proposed regulations threaten the viability of the established 

business models in operation at the ports of California, potentially upsetting 

existing lease agreements, and will throw our ports out of balance with ports 

throughout the rest of the country and internationally. (PMSA1) 

Response: ARB disagrees. Shore power is being implemented at many ports in 

California. By the end of 2008, five terminals at the Ports of Los Angeles and 

Long Beach will have at least one berth equipped with shore power equipment. In 

addition, the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles have adopted a Clean Air Action 

Plan that proposes to have 25 berths shore power ready by fiscal year 2010/2011. 
65 

Shore power applications are being considered at the Ports of Oakland, San Francisco, 

and San Diego. The number of shore power projects underway or in the planning stage 

undermines the commenter’s assertion that this regulation threatens the viability of 

established business models at California ports. 

While California ports will remain in the forefront of shore power implementation for the 

next few years, there is growing world-wide interest in shore power. Princess Cruise 

Lines already uses shore power at terminals in Juneau, Alaska, and Seattle, 

Washington. China’s largest port operator plans to introduce shore power this year, and 

the Port of Busan, South Korea, plans to install eight shore power systems by early next 

year. Additionally, 14 ports in the United States, Europe, Asia, South America, and 

Australia have committed to investigate the feasibility of building facilities to 

accommodate shore power. In a few years, California ports will not be alone in having 

shore power-ready berths. 

151. Comment: The terminal lessee or terminal operator is not the appropriate entity 

to prepare the electrical infrastructure plan for the following reasons: (PMSA1) 

- The terminal lessee or operator does not hold a right of property ownership of 

the terminal. As such, a terminal operator does not have any effective rights 

to implement or control the plan. 

- Marine terminal operators have from time-to-time found themselves going for 

multiple years without a renewal and are forced to operate on month-to-month 

lease terms with their landlord port. This is problematic because the cost of 

such an infrastructure improvement can only be carried over the existing term 

of the lease. 

- The terminal will have only a short-term interest in the property and will not 

retain economic benefits of the improvements beyond the terms of the lease, 

which may adversely affect the ability of the terminal lessee or operator to 

recover the cost of the improvement over a reasonable time period. 

- Requiring the terminals lessee or operator to develop and implement the plan 

may result in unequal implementation between terminals located at the same 

port. For example, a terminal lessee with a substantial period remaining on a 

lease may be able to develop a plan with the Port in which the long term 

lessee would derive substantially greater benefit than a lessee with a short 

time remaining on his lease and have no guarantee of a lease renewal. 

- Potential tax liability issues resulting from improvements added to the 

terminals which may be not be equally divided between the various terminals 

within a port. 
66 

152. Comment: For the following reasons, the appropriate entity for planning of 

infrastructure installation is the port authority: (PMSA1) 

- The port authority, as the landlord, is responsible to provide infrastructure to 

accommodate basic terminal and ship operations needs. Since the Ports will 

be making the improvements and will be the entity experiencing the long-term 

benefits of the infrastructure, they should be responsible for planning for the 

cold-ironing infrastructure. 

- Under commercial lease terms, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the 

property to existing regulatory code. The port authority acting as landlord is 

responsible for providing necessary improvements to reflect the requirements 

mandated by this regulation. The port authority is able to pass on additional 

costs sustained during an existing lease of a terminal when the parties 

engage in a scheduled financial review which provides for revenue 

adjustments. 

- The port has greater financial assets than terminals that can be used to 

obtain better financial packages to underwrite the cost of shore power 

infrastructure. For example, most public ports have a diversified portfolio of 

assents beyond marine terminal operations that can be the basis of accessing 

capital markets. Additionally, the bonding capabilities available to public port 

authorities or their respective governing cities allow them access to large 

amounts of capital and recover this capital over a much longer period of 

amortization. 

- The ports can act as a lead agency for the purpose of the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Terminal lessees or operators cannot act 

as lead agency for CEQA. 

- Because of the port’s overall responsibilities, the port is able to resolve 

potential conflicts in installation of infrastructure that may occur between 

terminals located at the same port. 

153. Comment: It is inappropriate for the terminal operator to be responsible for the 

plan. Terminals have no land use authority, no ability to do CEQA or issue 

permits to ourselves. Would be more appropriate on a port-wide basis to assign 

that responsibility to the port authorities who would do the planning documents 

and appropriate approvals, and through their leasing authority, can amortize the 

cost against the broad number of terminal operators to take out some of the 

variability that’s reflected in the cost effectiveness numbers. (PMSA2) 

Response: ARB disagrees. The terminal operators are the most appropriate entity to 

coordinate the development of the plan because of their working relationship with the 

vessel fleet operators, who are required by the regulation to reduce the emissions from 

their fleets. Since the terminal operators provide a service to the vessel operators, the 
67 

terminals and vessel operators have a business relationship that the landlord ports—

which include the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland—do not share with 

the vessel fleets. The landlord ports lease the terminal property to the terminal 

operator. 

The responsibility of submitting the terminal plan should not be confused with the 

obligation to provide the infrastructure necessary to execute the plan. ARB considered 

putting requirements into the regulation that mandated the responsibility for installing 

shore-side equipment, but determined that it was inappropriate and problematic to 

dictate terminal/port business relationships and contractual obligations and realized that 

the goals of this regulation will only be satisfied if the affected entities cooperate with 

each other. For example, the timely installation of shore-power infrastructure depends 

upon the cooperation between the local utility, the port, the terminal, and the ship fleet 

operator. ARB believes that there is a strong, business-related incentive for these 

partners to accommodate the needs of the vessel fleets that call on California ports. 

The regulation allows the affected parties to work cooperatively to achieve the goals of 

the regulation. 

Since all four entities have important roles with regard to the installation of shore power 

infrastructure, ARB believes that the most efficient way to develop a plan for installing 

the infrastructure is to have one entity act as lead in the development of the plan. The 

one entity would then work with the other three parties to develop a plan that 

coordinates the activities of the four entities. As noted, the terminal operators, because 

of their working relationships with the vessel fleets that call on their terminals, are the 

logical choice to coordinate the plan. 

For example, the electrical power demand for shore power can only be established with 

information provided by the vessel fleet operators. Only the vessel fleet operators can 

provide information on the electrical power needs for their ships and the number of visits 

these ships will make to California ports today and in the future. Typically, several 

different fleets visit a terminal, and the information must be obtained from all fleets 

visiting the terminal to establish the necessary power requirements. This is the most 

important information provided in the terminal plan. 

Additionally, only the vessel fleet operator can provide information on the physical 

details of the ships and the shore power capabilities of the ships for 2014 and beyond. 

Important information includes: the size of vessels, to help locate where sockets should 

be placed at the berth; the electrical system of the vessels, to determine how much 

infrastructure (e.g., cable reels) will be needed at the terminals versus onboard the 

vessels themselves; and the location of the shore-power connection on the vessel, 

which may affect the position of the ship at the berth (starboard or port?). All the above 

will have a bearing on the design of infrastructure on the shore. 

ARB disagrees that the terminal operator cannot prepare the terminal plan as a result of 

the terminal operator not holding a right of property ownership, potential lease issues, or 

potential tax liabilities resulting from the new electrical power infrastructure for shore 
68 

power. These issues do not affect the coordination and development of the terminal 

plan, but are issues to be considered when developing the milestones in the plan. 

ARB also disagrees that ports are the appropriate entity for the terminal plan because 

as landlords the ports are responsible to provide infrastructure for basic terminal and 

vessel operations and to maintain the property to existing code, or that the ports have 

greater financial assets than the terminals, or that the ports have the responsibility to 

address CEQA concerns and issue permits. While these points are pertinent for the 

execution of the plans (i.e., constructing the necessary infrastructure), they do not 

support the argument that the ports are better candidates for coordinating the plan. As 

discussed above, the terminals are better suited for determining the needs of their 

customers, the vessel fleet operators that are required by the regulation to reduce their 

emissions. 

154. Comment: Staff should be committed to providing detailed criteria for the 

terminal plan, such that if the terminals prepare these plans satisfy these criteria, 

the plan will be approved. (PMSA2)

Response: Staff agreed at the Board hearing that it would work with the terminal 

operators on the plans. To that end, staff revised the terminal plan portion of the 

regulation to add additional detailed criteria, which was included in the 15-day 

modifications to the regulation, and has worked with the commenter and his clients to 

develop a draft template for the plans. ARB will continue to work with the terminal 

operators regarding the preparation of the terminal plans. 

155. Comment: These inequities will be heightened by the thresholds developed by 

the proposed rule, for example, in that a general cargo terminal that receives 

49 general cargo visits and then one container or reefer vessel would be subject 

to installing infrastructure for that one vessel, but another terminal that receives 

49 passenger vessels calls would be exempt. The regulation also includes all 

container vessels, reefers, and passenger vessels regardless of the number of 

visits to a California port, the length of stay or the power demand of those 

vessels. (PMSA1) 

Response: The commenter may be confusing the requirement for submitting a plan, 

which is based on a threshold of 50 vessel calls to a terminal by affected ships 

(container ships, passenger ships, and refrigerated-cargo ships) with the requirements 

imposed on the vessel fleet operators to reduce their hotelling emissions and 

subsequently their reliance on the terminal operators to accommodate their needs. For 

example, because the regulation affects passenger-ship fleets that make five or more 

visits to a California port, a passenger terminal that receives 49 passenger-ship calls—

although exempt by the regulation from submitting a plan—would nevertheless be 

compelled to meet the needs of its customers by installing shore power infrastructure, 

plan or no plan. Again, the requirement for submitting a terminal plan should not be 

confused with an obligation to provide the necessary infrastructure. The desire to keep 

current customers (i.e., vessel fleets) and to attract new customers is more of a 
69 

business plan, one that should compel the terminals and the ports to work together to 

accommodate the vessels’ needs to comply with the regulation. 

The regulation requires affected fleets of container ships, passenger ships, and 

refrigerated-cargo ships either to reduce the use of auxiliary engines by some 

percentage or to reduce the emissions from the fleet by some percentage. Even in 

2020, when that percentage reaches 80 percent, 20 percent of the fleet’s activities are 

not subject to the requirements of the regulation. Therefore, one visit by a ship affected 

by the regulation would not require a terminal to add shore power infrastructure. 

156. Comment: Designation by type of vessel without provisions to excuse 

infrequent calls of low duration and activity cannot be justified on the basis of air 

quality improvements and is clearly arbitrary and capricious under the stated 

objectives of reducing emissions from vessels at berth. In addition, designation 

of only certain public port authorities as ports subject to this rule is also 

discriminatory. (PMSA1) 

Response: The regulation requires affected fleets of container ships, passenger ships, 

and refrigerated cargo ships to either reduce the use of auxiliary engines by 80 percent 

or reduce the emissions from the fleet by 80 percent. Ship fleet operators have the 

ability to exempt from the regulation “20 percent” of their fleet’s activity, including visits 

associated with ships that are infrequent visitors or ships that stay in port a short 

duration for all visits. ARB notes that for most affected fleets, the 80 percent criteria 

typically affects all the ships in the fleet that make four or more visits to the port. 

Since the regulation affects three ship categories, the affected ports are those to which 

these ship categories call—the six ports identified in the regulation. When ARB 

addresses the other ship categories—tankers, bulk and general cargo ships, and 

vehicle carriers—other ports may be affected by a separate rulemaking. 

AA. Cost Effectiveness of the Regulation 

157. Comment: The cost to implement shore power is tremendously variable. To 

help minimize the cost impact of the regulation, the regulation should be revised 

to add cost-effectiveness thresholds above which terminal operators and ocean 

carriers would be allowed to pursue less costly means of reducing at-berth 

emissions. The current regulation does not provide for any such consideration. 

(PMSA1)

158. Comment: We want to ensure that the costs of compliance are fairly allocated. 

We would like to work to ensure that the emission reduction goals are met and 

the costs to achieve these goals are lowered as much as possible. (CMTA) 

Response: ARB agrees the cost to implement shore power is variable and stated such 

in the TSD. On the other hand, the regulation does not prescribe any particular 

technology to be used for compliance, so a “less costly” means of reducing at-berth 
70 

emissions is certainly allowed. In fact, ARB expects the affected businesses to comply 

with the regulation through the most cost-effective means possible, which is why the 

regulation provides flexibility. Industry (i.e., the “marketplace”) is best suited to 

determining how to comply with the regulation. ARB believes that the affected vessel 

categories and the ports on which they call have been fairly treated by the regulation. 

Who ultimately bears what costs of the regulation will be determined by the market 

(i.e., through typical business practices). 

159. Comment: In the assignment of cost, staff failed to identify the ports as direct 

contributors. Staff assumed that the landlord ports will eventually recover their 

costs through modifications to terminal leases, while the non-landlord ports will 

recover their capital costs through fees collected from the carriers. Port costs are 

real and should be accounted for. (PMSA1)

Response: ARB concurs that the ports will incur costs due to the regulation. 

Nevertheless, in Chapter X of the TSD, ARB allocated the costs for the regulation 

among the vessel fleet operators, the terminals, and the utilities. The vessel fleet 

operators are responsible for costs associated with retrofitting their vessels with 

emission-reduction equipment or shore-power capability. For the shoreside 

infrastructure, ARB divided the costs between the utilities, for electrical improvements 

beyond the port’s property, and the terminals, for cost improvements within port 

property. 

The improvements beyond the port’s property are related to the utility service that brings 

electrical power to the port, which varies widely between ports. Some ports, such as 

the Port of Los Angeles, have existing electrical infrastructure to serve their shore power 

requirements better than others, such as the Port of Long Beach. The improvements 

within port property are either: 1) improvements to the port-wide electrical system; or 

2) improvements to the terminal electrical system. ARB assigned the cost for the 

improvements within port property to the terminals, assuming that ports would install the 

improvements and recover the costs from the terminals. 

160. Comment: The cost analysis does not evaluate the benefits of the voluntary 

efforts moving forward without the proposed regulation. In addition, while not yet 

implemented, the San Pedro Bay ports have already adopted their Clean Air 

Action Plan to equip terminals with the necessary infrastructure over the next few 

years. There is no analysis of the benefits resulting from implementing the plan 

without the proposed regulation. (PMSA1) 

Response: ARB applauds the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach for adopting and 

implementing the Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP). The CAAP is a five-year plan that 

focuses on reducing emissions from all sources visiting and operating at the two ports, 

including ships, trains, trucks, and cargo-handling equipment. One of the measures in 

the CAAP proposes the use of shore power to reduce at-berth ocean-going vessel 

emissions. The measure indicates, by fiscal year 2010/2011, that at least one berth will 

have shore power capability for each of the container and passenger ship terminals at 
71 

the two ports or 25 berths in total. With this infrastructure in place, the plan estimates 

that about 1,000 ship visits will use shore power in fiscal year 2010/2011. 

ARB believes the shore power measure in the CAAP represents an aggressive initial 

implementation of shore power within the two ports. At full implementation, the CAAP 

proposal will reduce NOx emissions by 15 percent and PM emissions by 20 percent. 

This regulation builds on the CAAP in requiring greater utilization of shore power, 

requiring the use of shore power for 80 percent or more of all visits made by container 

and passenger ships to the two ports by 2020, or an equivalent emission reduction. 

Because the reductions in the CAAP are not mandated by a regulation, the reductions 

resulting from implementing the plan are included in the overall reductions of the 

regulation. In the TSD, ARB estimated that, prior to 2011, reductions achieved by the 

regulation were essentially due to the implementation of the CAAP measures. Since 

the Board adopted the regulation in 2007, however, there have been other early shorepower projects being proposed to take advantage of early incentives, such as 

Proposition 1B and Carl Moyer funds. 

161. Comment: It is not clear what benefit the auxiliary fuel regulation and voluntary 

efforts already underway contribute to the cost effectiveness of the regulation. 

There is confusion of the claimed benefits of the regulation in light of the pending 

low-sulfur fuel regulation for ships. There is no analysis of the costs and benefits 

of these regulations after full implementation of local measures and compliance, 

whether regulatory or voluntary, with the standards envisioned under the current 

existing laws and voluntary measures taken as a whole. (PMSA1) 

Response: When estimating the air quality benefits of the regulation, ARB excluded 

any reductions that have been or will be achieved by other regulations pertaining to 

auxiliary engines on ocean-going vessels. For example, when the Board adopted the 

regulation, the auxiliary fuel regulation was already in effect. That regulation required 

the use of 0.5 percent sulfur marine distillate fuel by January 1, 2007. The use of this 

fuel reduced emissions from auxiliary engines on ocean-going vessels by 75 percent for 

diesel PM and six percent for NOx. These benefits were to increase in 2010, when the 

auxiliary engine fuel regulation was to require 0.1 percent sulfur fuel to be used. 

ARB did not double-count the emission reductions achieved by the fuel regulation, but 

built on the success of that regulation. Despite litigation and uncertainty regarding the 

auxiliary engine fuel regulation, ARB believes that regulation will be in place when this 

regulation becomes effective. 

On the other hand, ARB included the emissions reductions and costs claimed by plans, 

such as the San Pedro Ports Clean Air Action Plan because, as a plan, it was not a 

binding regulation. This regulation overlays the plan and becomes binding. 
72 

BB. Health Benefits Analysis of the Regulation 

162. Comment: Sulfur oxides are a significant precursor to PM2.5 emissions. ARB’s 

GMERP finalized in April of 2006 did not fully quantify the health impacts 

associated with the secondary particulate formation of sulfates. The plan did 

note however that as new information emerges about the contribution of sulfates 

to the health impacts from ambient levels of fine particles, it may be necessary to 

accelerate implementation of the strategies in the plan (GMERP, p. 119). It is 

our understanding that ARB anticipated folding in these health impacts over the 

course of ensuing months. Based on the most recent scientific data, ARB should 

incorporate these impacts into the analysis of the regulatory costs and health 

benefits to fully capture the morbidity and mortality associated with ship pollution. 

ARB’s staff report should fully reflect the health benefits of this regulation and 

incorporate the most recent scientific research including impacts from particulate 

sulfate. (ENVORG2) 

Response: ARB agrees with the commenter that the Staff Report should fully reflect 

the health benefits of the regulation. At the time the potential health benefits were 

assessed, analytical tools were not available for assessing the contribution of sulfur 

oxides (SOx) to the health impacts from PM2.5 emissions; consequently, these impacts 

were not considered as part of the health benefits for this regulation. Furthermore, ARB 

assumed that the auxiliary engine fuel regulation would have already reduced SOx 

emissions by 80 percent, perhaps climbing to 96 percent if lower-sulfur fuel were 

available by 2010. Therefore the vast majority of any health benefits associated with 

sulfates are captured under the auxiliary engine fuel rule. 

The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA) filed suit in federal district court 

challenging the auxiliary engine fuel regulation as preempted emission standards under 

Clean Air Act section 209(e). In May 2008, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the 

lower court’s granting of summary judgment against ARB’s enforcement of that 

regulation. The Board subsequently adopted another fuel regulation, Fuel Sulfur and 

Other Operational Requirements for Ocean-Going Vessels within California Waters and 

24 Nautical Miles of the California Baseline (2008), to reduce emissions from all engines 

and boilers onboard ocean-going vessels. This regulation will recapture the emissions 

reductions achieved by the regulation contested by PMSA and broaden those 

reductions to other engines and boilers. The fuel regulation, in conjunction with our 

regulation to reduce hotelling emissions, will significantly reduce at-berth SOx 

emissions. 

163. Comment: We expect greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions from this regulation to 

be significant. We are pleased that this rule is now proposed to be a part of the 

implementation of AB 32 early action measures. ARB must ensure that all GHG 

reductions are quantified and that ARB’s analysis of regulatory costs, health 

benefits and cost-effectiveness incorporated these reductions by apportioning 

part of the costs to GHG reductions. ARB must quantify the GHG reductions 
73 

associated with rule. ARB’s analysis of regulatory costs, health benefits, and 

cost-effectiveness must adequately account for these reductions. (ENVORG2) 

Response: ARB agrees that the reductions of GHG should be quantified, but 

disagrees that part of the cost of the regulation should be apportioned to GHG 

reductions. The regulation was intended to reduce the emissions of PM and NOx from 

ships that are docked at California ports. The PM emission reductions support the 

ARB’s effort to reduce exposure to toxic diesel PM and help meet air quality standards 

for PM2.5. In addition, the NOx emission reductions resulting from the regulation will 

also assist districts that do not yet satisfy the ozone ambient air quality standards. ARB 

expects that most affected shipping companies will use shore power to comply with the 

regulation. The use of shore power, as compared to operating the ship’s auxiliary 

engines, will result in significant reductions of GHG. Consequently, the GHG reductions 

are a by-product of the effort to reduce the at-berth ship emissions of PM and NOx. 

Being a by-product, the GHG reductions have no regulatory cost associated with them, 

but ARB did quantify the potential GHG emission reductions in Chapter IX of the TSD. 

164. Comment: The impacts and benefits of this regulation are overstated due to the 

uncertainties inherent in the emission factors for ship auxiliary engines using the 

fuels assumed for this regulation. (PMSA1) 

Response: ARB disagrees. The impacts and benefits of this regulation were based 

upon emission factors that have been publicly reviewed through the development of the 

ARB regulation entitled Auxiliary Diesel Engines And Diesel-Electric Engines Operated 

On Ocean-Going Vessels Within California Waters And 24 Nautical Miles Of The 

California Baseline (2005), and the Goods Movement Emission Reduction Plan 

(GMERP, 2006). As part of these proceedings, ARB staff performed a critical review of 

the available information on ship engine PM emissions (See white paper: A Critical 

Review of Ocean-Going Vessel Particulate Matter Emission Factors, 2007). 

Regarding the perceived uncertainty of fuel types to be used, see response to Comment 

161 for a discussion on fuel assumptions, litigation, and recent Board actions. ARB 

believes that low-sulfur fuels will be used in auxiliary engines when the requirements of 

this regulation take effect—the base case for the analysis as indicated on page five of 

Chapter V of the TSD. If heavy, high-sulfur bunker fuel is being used instead of 

cleaner-burning distillate fuels, the impacts and benefits of this regulation will be 

significantly greater and the cost-effectiveness would be even more favorable. 

165. Comment: The health risk assessment done for this regulation is too limited 

geographically to determine the actual emission reduction benefits. The 

modeling domain used was for the San Pedro Bay ports only and did not include 

the entire regulated area with regard to the multiple ports affected in this 

rulemaking. In order to understand the full benefits and costs of implementing 

this proposed regulation, CARB needs to do the appropriate modeling to 

determine the impacts and benefits based on the population densities, proximity, 

and exposure time to the vessels throughout the state. (PMSA1) 
74 

Response: It was appropriate to conduct the health risk assessment for the San Pedro 

Bay area because this is where the majority of vessels subject to the regulations are 

traveling, and likely encompasses the communities subject to the highest health risks. 

We recognize that other areas will experience different health impacts and are 

preparing health risk assessments for other areas. For example, ARB has been 

developing a health risk assessment for the Port of Oakland and the West Oakland 

community since early 2006. A draft health risk assessment was released spring 2008 

and is expected to be finalized by the end of the year. Together, these two risk 

assessments represent nearly 90 percent of the total visits affected by this regulation. 

Health risk assessments require complex computer modeling that is labor intensive. It 

would not be appropriate to delay the regulations by months or even years to evaluate 

all areas of the State. In addition, the health risk assessment for the Ports of 

Los Angeles and Long Beach focused on diesel PM. The regulations also reduce NOx 

and SOx emissions. These pollutants have additional health impacts to citizens living 

near ports. 

CC. Greenhouse Gases 

166. Comment: We expect greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions from this regulation to 

be significant. We are pleased that this rule is the first Early Action Measure for 

AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Bill. Any method of compliance that would 

cause increased greenhouse gases should not be allowed, especially where 

compliance options exist that reduce GHGs. All compliance pathways should be 

held to the GHG standards set for Distributed Generation – for example the 

Wittmar LNG shore power equipment. We support the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District’s (SCAQMD) recommendation that alternative technologies 

should be BACT. Ensure that compliance pathways meet GHG standards to 

guarantee the maximum potential GHG reductions possible through this rule. 

(ENVORG3) 

167. Comment: We ask the ARB to continue to reduce GHG. The GHG reductions 

from the proposed regulation can be significant in achieving early reductions 

keeping with the spirit of AB 32. Compliance should be held to the GHG 

standards set for distributed generation or a higher standard to ensure maximum 

potential reductions through this rule. (BCLAC2) 

168. Comment: Concerned that there isn’t a broader policy to prevent any 

greenhouse gas backsliding with this rule, meaning some alternatives 

compliance strategies may cause increases in greenhouse gases. Where there 

are no other feasible means to comply, maybe that can be considered. But in 

this case, we feel there are feasible alternatives that would be positive on 

greenhouse gasses meaning we would see reductions. Request that a clause be 

put in to prevent backsliding of GHGs. (NRDC) 
75 

169. Comment: The staff proposal does include standards for NOx and PM 

emissions. However, does not believe that greenhouse gas emissions have 

been treated equally in this regulation. Would like to see some protections in the 

regulation against backsliding at a minimum to ensure that we move forward and 

get the emission reductions we all desire. (UCS) 

Response: As stated in Chapter IX of the TSD, the regulation will reduce CO2

emissions by 122,000 to 242,000 metric tons in 2020. The regulation achieves these 

reductions automatically as a co-benefit of the diesel PM and NOx emission reductions. 

ARB estimated these potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions by 

assuming shore power will be used as the compliance path of choice, so the auxiliary 

engines on the vessels would be shut down and power would come from the grid. The 

marginal electricity from the grid that would be needed to supply the vessels would 

come from combined-cycle gas turbines, which produce less CO2 per kilowatt-hour than 

the auxiliary engines, hence the CO2 emission reductions. 

The regulation requires that distributed generation (DG) equipment, such as that 

provided by the “Wittmar” unit, provide electricity that is GHG-equivalent to the grid: 

500 grams/ kilowatt-hour. This requirement essentially prohibits fuels other than natural 

gas (e.g. diesel) from being used in DG equipment, maximizing the emission-reduction 

benefits of the regulation. 

ARB did not recommend such a CO2 limit for other alternative technologies that do not 

generate and provide electricity as a method for achieving the reductions. These 

technologies, such as a capture-and-treat system (i.e., the “bonnet” technology), 

particulate filters, or selective catalytic reduction (SCR) units, can significantly reduce 

criteria pollutants and/or toxic air pollutants but may slightly increase GHG emissions. 

However, it is unlikely that these technologies would be used widely; therefore, ARB 

expects overall reductions in GHGs. ARB believes that the flexible approach to 

reducing NOx and PM emissions from hotelling ships that is provided by a full range of 

possible alternative technologies is paramount for the effectiveness of the regulation. 

Since CO2 emission reductions are a natural co-benefit of the regulation, ARB asserts 

that any slight reduction in GHG benefits from the application of alternative technologies 

is minimal and acceptable. 

170. Comment: AB 32 clearly places responsibility on the ARB in regards to 

implementing climate policies. It would be better for our climate policies and our 

state in general if we have ARB overseeing AB 32 efforts instead of having this 

piecemeal approach we are now seeing with the CEQA debate. (CMTA) 

Response: ARB agrees that AB 32 clearly gives ARB the authority to reduce 

greenhouse gases in California. Nevertheless, ARB must count on other State 

agencies, local governmental agencies, and industry to work as partners to achieve the 

challenging goal of significantly reducing GHG emissions in the State. 
76 

171. Comment: In the utility industry there is a lot of debate on the generation, when 

a utility procures that power, who owns the GHG attributes that may be a 

tradable asset down the road. I would propose that GHG attributes be owned by 

entity implementing shore power. (DW) 

Response: ARB understands and notes the comment. It is premature to determine the 

ownership of “tradable assets” related to GHG emission reductions. AB 32 requires the 

Board, by January 1, 2009, to design and adopt an overall plan (the Scoping Plan, or 

Plan) to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. ARB staff is currently working 

on the Plan, which will be presented to the Board for consideration of adoption in 

November 2008. 

A cap-and trade system for reducing GHG emissions is expected to be part of the 

proposed Plan taken to the Board. Should the Board adopt a cap-and-trade system as 

part of an overall strategy to reduce GHG emissions, the technical and administrative 

details of that system would still have to be developed. The Board has until 

January 1, 2011, to adopt the necessary regulations to implement the Plan, which, as 

mentioned, may include the cap-and-trade system. The “credits” for reducing GHG 

emissions, and the market in which these credits would be traded, has yet to be 

determined. 

DD. Enforcement/Jurisdiction 

 

172. Comment: We urge you to watch closely over enforcement. We think that you 

may need some additional resources to enforce this regulation. We would like to 

work with ARB to help with enforcement to make sure we are getting the public 

health benefits and emission reductions expected. (ALA)

173. Comment: We strongly urge the ARB to include strong enforcement provisions 

into this regulation. Vessels should be required to provide supporting 

documentation to the ARB enforcement officials upon request and quarterly 

progress reports should be made public. The appropriate authority should 

conduct frequent terminal checks, both to monitor progress of shore power 

infrastructure development and the actual usage of shore power by docked 

vessels. The ARB should work with other state and federal agencies to gain 

efficiencies in enforcing this regulation. Specific language must be included to 

clarify that upon adoption of this regulation, the use of shore power will no longer 

exempt an operator from the requirements of other current or future marine rules. 

California needs a full suite of control measures which build on one another to 

address pollution from ships—not one measure that can rely on any number of 

alternative options—many of which may be the subject of future regulation. 

(ENVORG2) 

Response: ARB agrees with the comments. ARB's FY 08-09 budget includes two staff 

positions to perform compliance outreach and other enforcement efforts for this and 
77 

several other newly adopted regulations that target emissions from port and other 

goods-movement related activities. 

A significant portion of this regulation is dedicated to ensure compliance with the 

emission standards of this regulation. First, terminal plan operators are required to 

submit terminal plans to the Executive Officer detailing the changes to their facility to 

accommodate the vessels that will need to satisfy the emission reduction goals of the 

regulation. Second, the responsible official of each affected fleet must submit an annual 

compliance statement certifying compliance with the requirements from the previous 

year. Finally, each affected fleet is subject to reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. These records will be subject to inspection by ARB and local air district 

enforcement staff. 

Some of information the regulation requires fleets to maintain may be considered 

confidential; ARB will make information available upon request as allowed under the 

Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.). 

Finally, ARB will continue to work with shipping companies, terminal operators and ports 

to ensure compliance with this regulation. ARB intends to work with the affected 

organizations to develop the necessary forms, provide for electronic submittal, and 

provide any necessary assistance, such as training workshops. ARB believes effective 

outreach will enhance compliance with the regulation. 

With regard to other regulations containing shore power exemptions, ARB will review 

and revise the shore power elements in these regulations as necessary. 

174. Comment: ARB should maintain jurisdictional control. Don’t place the 

jurisdictional responsibility on the local agencies. (CMTA) 

Response: ARB will continue to work as partners with the local air districts to enforce 

rules and regulations, including this one. The local air districts may have permitting 

authority for some of the equipment deployed for compliance with this regulation. For 

example, some shoreside equipment, such as a shore-side generator or a “capture-andtreat” unit (i.e., the “bonnet” technology unit), is considered stationary equipment, 

subject to local air district permits and enforcement. 

175. Comment: Ships should not be subject to fees and penalties until adequate 

power is available for all ships calling at California ports. (PMSA1) 

Response: ARB believes that adequate power will be available to meet the 

requirements of the regulation. See the response to Comments 28-84 regarding the 

discussion of compliance schedules. ARB determined the performance standards in 

the Reduced Onboard Generation option schedule based on discussions with the utility 

companies, ports, terminal operators, and vessel fleet operators. The requirements are 

phased-in, and ARB believes that these requirements are reasonable. To wait until all 
78 

ships calling at California ports have adequate power before enforcing the regulation is 

unreasonable and will unnecessarily delay emission reductions and health benefits. 

EE. Circumvention of Public Disclosure Process 

176. Comment: We are concerned that ARB is circumventing the public disclosure 

process by not making public the latest draft of shore power regulations released 

in early October. We understand that the only parties that have officially been 

notified are the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland. A matter of 

such critical importance to California’s environmental and public health should 

not only be decided by the ports. We ask that you amend this current draft to 

reflect our recommendations as stated above, and distribute a revised draft 

widely and publicly with the required time necessary for public comment before 

the regulation comes before the ARB Board of Directors. (ENVORG1) 

Response: ARB disagrees strongly with the comment that ARB circumvented the 

public disclosure process during the development of the regulation. 

As in all regulatory development processes, ARB held both public meetings and 

individual meetings with stakeholders in the development of this regulation. During the 

informal regulatory process, ARB held five workgroup meetings and three community 

outreach meetings. ARB also participated in numerous meetings with various individual 

stakeholders—typically meetings with one or more stakeholders to either gather 

information, obtain feedback on proposed regulatory concepts, or address concerns. 

These meetings were held with representatives of the ports, environmental groups, 

emission reduction technology developers, terminal operators, and vessel fleet 

operators. The regulation was developed in an open forum with full disclosure during 

the regulatory development process. 

Regarding the allegation that ARB staff shared with the ports a draft proposed 

regulation to which other stakeholders had no access, ARB assumes the commenter is 

referring to a time period just prior to the publication of the Staff Report. During the 

week of September 24, 2007, ARB released the most current draft regulation and held 

three workshops and two community meetings at various locations in the State. At 

these meetings, ARB discussed additional revisions it intended to make to the draft 

regulation. 

ARB revised the draft proposed regulation several times leading up to its submittal to 

the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). ARB communicated with several 

stakeholders—ports, utilities, local air districts, and consultants—as it continued to 

make revisions. ARB submitted the draft proposed regulation to OAL on 

October 9, 2007. 

Because there had been some late revisions to the draft proposed regulation discussed 

at the prior workshops and public meetings, ARB held a final workshop during the 

45-comment period—on November 9, 2007—to obtain additional public input on these 
79 

proposed revisions. ARB had issued the notice of this workshop on October 25, 2007, 

less than a week after the commencement of the 45-day comment period. 

ARB continued to work with stakeholders during the 45-day comment period, and 

ultimately revised the proposed draft regulation substantially before presenting it to the 

Board on December 7, 2007, at a public hearing. The development of this regulation, 

with all of the revisions to the draft proposed regulation that continued through the 

Board hearing, was conducted in an open, transparent, and publicly accessible manner. 

FF. Supports Port Drayage Truck Regulation 

177. Comment: We support the proposed port drayage truck rule and urge the Board 

to adopt the measure. The Port of Long Beach and Los Angeles Boards have 

approved a progressive ban that eliminates dirty drayage trucks serving the two 

ports. The ports’ and CARB’s programs together provide a comprehensive 

approach to addressing port drayage emissions. (POLB2) 

Response: This comment was included in a letter that addressed comments on this 

regulation as well as on ARB’s proposed Port Drayage Truck Regulation. Both 

regulations were presented to the Board on December 6, 2007. Because this comment 

does not address this regulation, ARB does not providing any response to the comment. 

GG. Comments by Reference 

The following comments and documents were requested to be incorporated by 

reference into the rulemaking file (PMSA1): 

PMSA correspondence with Dr. Pingkuan Di, CARB, November 21, 2005, regarding 

comments on the “Draft Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure Assessment Study for the 

Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.” 

Response: The letter provided comments on a draft ARB report: Diesel Particulate 

Matter Exposure Assessment Study for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, 

October 2005. The report was subsequently finalized April 2006, after considering all 

comments, including the above. Because these comments were addressed in the final 

version of the report, ARB does not respond to the letter’s comments in this FSOR. 

PMSA correspondence with Mr. Mike Waugh, CARB, April 5, 2006 regarding comments 

on the “Preliminary Draft Evaluation of Cold-Ironing of Ocean-Going Vessels at 

California Ports.” 

Response: The letter provided comments for ARB’s draft report: Preliminary Draft 

Evaluation of Cold-Ironing of Ocean Going Vessels at California’s Ports (Evaluation 

Report). This report evaluated the technical and cost-effectiveness of using shore 

power (cold-ironing) to reduce at-berth emissions for ocean going vessels based upon 

ship category. The report estimated the cost-effectiveness of using shore power three 
80 

different ways: for all ships that visit a port, for all ships that made three or more visits 

to a port, and for all ships that made six or more visits to a port. Estimates of costeffectiveness were made for each ship category and for each port the ship category 

visited in 2005. While the final regulation is very different than the proposal reviewed in 

the Evaluation Report, ARB did consider all of the comments raised in this letter in the 

development of this regulation, particularly in the cost-effectiveness calculations. 

Because this letter did not address the regulation as it was published at the beginning of 

this rulemaking process, ARB does not respond to the letter in this FSOR. 

PMSA correspondence with Clerk of the Board, CARB. April 19, 2006, regarding 

comments on the “Proposed Emission Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement 

in California.” 

Response: This letter provided comments on the Proposed Emission Reduction Plan 

for Ports and Goods Movement in California. This report provided a plan to reduce 

emissions from the movement of goods, including activities at California ports. Because 

these comments do not apply to the regulation, the FSOR does not respond to the 

comments in this letter. 
81 

IV. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES TO THE MODIFIED 

TEXT 

Four written comments were received on the changes made to the regulation during the 

public comment period for the 15-day Notice (August 22, 2008 to September 8, 2008). 

A list of commenters is set forth in Table II below, identifying the date and form of all 

comments that were timely submitted. Following the list is a summary of each objection 

or recommendation made regarding the proposed action, together with an explanation 

of how the proposed action has been changed to accommodate the objection or 

recommendation, or the reasons for making no change. The comments have been 

grouped by topic. 

Table II: Comments Received During the 15-day Comment Period 

Abbreviation Commenter 

ACTI 

John Powell 

ACTI Engineering 

Written Testimony: August 27, 2008 

TBI 

William G. Gotimer, Jr. 

Trailer Bridge, Inc. 

Written Testimony: September 3, 2008 

MAERSK 

B. Lee Kindberg, Ph.D. 

Maersk Inc. 

Written Testimony: September 8, 2008 

PMSA 

John McLaurin 

Pacific Merchant Shipping Association 

Written Testimony: September 8, 2008 
82 

A. Legal Authority 

1. Comment: The ARB is preempted by federal law from implementing the 

regulation. The Board’s authority in this rulemaking, derived from 

Health & Safety Code §§ 43013 and 43018, explicitly authorizes ARB to regulate 

marine sources only to the extent it is not preempted by federal law. The Board’s 

authority derived from Health & Safety Code §39666 is also subject to federal 

preemption. In addition, the State’s statutory authority to regulate emissions from 

mobile non-road sources is, to any extent, derived directly from the explicit grant 

of such authority under federal law. These regulations, similar to the previous 

regulations on auxiliary and diesel electric engines, have exposed several 

fundamental problems concerning the State’s authority to impose such a 

regulation on vessels, both U.S.-flagged and foreign-flagged. Specifically, PMSA 

believes that the proposed regulations’ paragraph (d) should not be adopted. 

This section places requirements on vessels that are inconsistent with, and 

contradictory to, existing statutes, court decisions and other provisions of law, 

and they exceed the rulemaking authority of the Board. (PMSA) 

2. Comment: In 1990, Congress amended the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) to authorize 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) to adopt emission 

standards and other requirements related to the control of emissions from nonroad sources. Congress amended Section 209, which pertains to motor vehicle 

emission adding Paragraph (e) (1): 

No state or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or attempt to 

enforce any standard or other requirement relating to the control of 

emission from either of the following new non-road engines or non-road 

vehicles subject to regulation under this chapter... (PMSA) 

3. Comment: The CAA further defines a “non-road engine” as “an internal 

combustion engine (including the fuel system) that is not used in a motor 

vehicle.” (42 U.S.C. section 7550(10)). The requirements of the regulation require 

the modification of the vessel that is preempted under the CAA. The evidence of 

the requirement to retrofit can be found in the first definition of in the regulation, 

“Alternative Control Technologies” (§ (c) (1)) that allows for anything “other than 

shutting down the engine.” Because of the required modification of the vessel to 

comply, regardless of resulting emission reductions, the regulation is clearly in 

conflict with federal law and should not be implemented. (PMSA) 

4. Comment: PMSA and CARB have both previously commented extensively on 

case law that make it clear that this proposed regulation is preempted by the 

CAA, the Port and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) and OPA 90 (including Engine 

Manufacturers Association v. US EPA, 88 F.3d 1075 (D.C. Cir.1996) and United 

States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89 (2000)). For this regulation the same arguments 

apply, as the state of California is preempted under federal law from imposing 

regulations that result in modifications to the vessels or their operation. (PMSA) 
83 

5. Comment: In summary, the proposed regulation should be invalidated because 

it violates the Congressional intent of the Clean Air Act, PWSA, OPA90, in 

addition to the commerce clause and other federal statutes, and violates the 

general preemption principles that “give force to the long standing rule that the 

enactment of a uniform federal scheme displaces state law.” 

Response: These comments are outside the scope of the 15-day changes; however, 

see response to Comments 2-4 in 45-day comment responses. 

B. Do Not Adopt Regulation 

6. Comment: The planning and acknowledgment of this rule will result in 

substantial costs to the industry that could affect the long term use of California 

ports as a gateway for imported and exported goods. Therefore it is imperative 

that the industry and CARB work to avoid otherwise unnecessary disruption of 

goods to and from California. The clearest and most direct way to work towards 

a mutually acceptable outcome that will yield significant results similar in scope 

and affect to those that are expected to accrue from the proposed rulemaking 

would be to work out a Memorandum of Understanding between industry and the 

Board. 

To make the MOU fully actionable and comprehensive and consistent with Port 

plans, adopted pursuant to our proposed changes, it would need to be developed 

under a scenario that doesn’t punish early adopters, recognizes that some 

vessels and marine terminals will be more suited for shore side power in the 

short-term than others, and acknowledge the lack of an international standard. 

We believe that the costs would be substantially reduced, the benefits accrued 

would be similar in significance to those presented to the Board at present, and 

that in such a scenario the proposed rules that are currently before you, with the 

exception of paragraphs (d), (e) and (f), could move forward without major 

industry opposition or the threat of litigation hanging over the Board. 

A final consideration in favor of a voluntary MOU approach is the existence of the 

1B bond funds, and the potential of other funding sources, that could be used to 

provide shore side infrastructure and/or ship retrofits in the absence of a 

regulation but would be restricted, if not precluded, after the regulations are 

approved. (PMSA) 

Response: These comments are outside the scope of the 15-day changes; however, 

see response to Comments 5-6 in 45-day comment responses. 

C. Regulated California Waters 

7. Comment: the inclusion of the definition of “regulated California waters” is 

unnecessary and is in conflict with other definitions in the regulation. 
84 

PMSA has previously documented our concerns about the creation of the 

artificial concept of “Regulated California Waters” that is contrary to the authority 

granted to California by the federal government and has no basis in statute. In 

addition to those concerns, we strongly object to the inclusion of this definition in 

this regulation since it is entirely out of context. While we strongly believe that 

California is preempted by federal law from implementing this regulation, no one 

is contesting that California has control over the waters and Ports within three 

nautical miles of the California baseline. We readily concede that all California 

Ports are well within California’s jurisdiction of three miles from the baseline. 

Therefore, not only is this definition unnecessary, the inclusion of this definition is 

also inconsistent and in conflict with the already included definition of California 

Ports in the regulation. The definition of “California Ports” for this regulation is 

restricted to six ports: Hueneme, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, San 

Diego, and San Francisco. The definition within the “Regulated California 

Waters” includes “all California ports,” not just the six that are subject to the 

regulation creating conflicting and confusing definitions of California Ports that 

could lead the reader to believe that all California Ports are covered. 

The staff justification that the definition of “Regulated California Waters” is 

needed because it is included in section (b) (3) (A) is more easily and clearly 

resolved by modifying that section as follows: 

“Ocean-going vessel voyages that consist of continuous and expeditious 

navigation through any of the Regulated California Waters for the purpose of 

traversing such bodies of water without entering California internal or estuarine 

waters or calling at a port, roadstead, or terminal facility, “continuous and 

expeditious navigation” included;” 

Since the State of California has no claim or reason to affect the innocent 

passage of vessels there is any reason for the artificial concept of “Regulated 

California Waters” to further confuse and conflict with the stated purpose of the 

regulation to be imposed only on limited types of vessels at six selected ports in 

California. In order to avoid the conflicting definition of California Ports, and 

clarify that the application of the regulation only applies to the six ports listed 

above the obvious solution is to remove the definition of “Regulated California 

Waters” from the regulation. (PMSA) 

8. Comment: The proposed definition of "Regulated Waters" is too broad and 

exceeds the scope of California's authority. There is no adequate legal authority 

cited for this broad definition, as mandated under California Government Code 

Section 11346.2(a) (2), and confirmed by recent court decisions. The stated 

intent of this definition for this section could be accomplished with much more 

general language, removing the question of jurisdiction. (MAERSK)
85 

Response: ARB disagrees that the definition of “Regulated California Waters,” as used 

in this regulation, is too broad. The definition of Regulated California Waters is tied to 

the exemption in subsection (b)(3)(A). Subsection (b)(3)(A) exempts from the 

requirements of the regulation “ocean-going vessels voyages that consist of continuous 

and expeditious navigation through any of the Regulated California Waters for the 

purpose of traversing such bodies of water without entering California internal or 

estuarine waters or calling at a port, roadstead, or terminal facility....” This regulation 

uses the same definition of “Regulated California Waters” as is used in other ARB 

regulations that affect ocean-going ships. Read together, the definition of Regulated 

California Waters has been modified to exclude voyages that do not result in visiting a 

port, roadstead, or terminal facility; therefore, such voyages are exempted from the 

requirements of the regulation. 

ARB also disagrees that the use of Regulated California Waters within this regulation is 

confusing. The term is only used in conjunction with subsection (b)(3)(A). As discussed 

above, the exemption clearly exempts ships traveling through Regulated California 

Waters from the regulation for those trips that do not involve a stop at a port, roadstead, 

or terminal facility. Otherwise, the regulation clearly affects container vessels, 

passenger vessels, and refrigerated cargo vessels when these vessels are docked at 

berth at a California port, a California port being defined as one of six ports: Hueneme, 

Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, San Diego, and San Francisco. 

D. Include Boiler Emissions 

9. Comment: The sentence from Requirements and Compliance Schedule 

(d) (2) (A) “...Specifically, at-berth auxiliary engine emissions must be reduced by 

10 percent by January 1, 2010, 25 percent by January, 2012, ...” should be 

modified to read “Specifically, at-berth emissions must be reduced by...” where 

the words ‘auxiliary engines’ have been deleted. (ACTI) 

10. Comment: At-berth emissions include boiler emissions, and the ACTI system 

will reduce boiler emissions as well as auxiliary engine emissions, resulting in 

lower total emissions than if only the auxiliary engines were considered. Total 

emissions reductions should be the criterion. (ACTI)

Response: ARB disagrees. The intent of the regulation is to reduce emissions from 

auxiliary engines on ocean-going ships. The emissions from boilers are outside the 

scope of this regulation. Boiler emissions from ocean-going vessels were addressed in 

ARB’s ocean-going vessels engines and auxiliary boilers regulation that was adopted by 

the Board in July 2008. 

E. Other Ship Categories 

11. Comment: Even if limited to California’s Territorial Waters, this proposed 

regulation is a violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The 

regulation at hand affirmatively and facially discriminates in fact and in practical 
86 

effect against only selected vessels types, calling at selected ports. In so doing, 

the State is actively discriminating against vessels by choosing to regulate only 

those vessels that are engaged in interstate and foreign commerce. In fact, 

PMSA is not aware of any single vessel, much less any container, “reefer,” or 

cruise vessels, plying intercoastal waterways in a purely intrastate capacity that 

meets the proposed definition of “Oceangoing Vessel.” Simply put, this rule 

imposes requirements, fees, and penalties that only impact international trade 

and interstate commerce without any commensurate impacts on, or regulatory 

parity for, any other vessels involved in intrastate trade. (PMSA) 

Response: ARB disagrees. To the extend that a fleet is only involved in intercoastal 

waterways trade and commerce, that fleet would be subject to the regulation if the fleet 

visits an affected port 25 or more times. The regulation affects all fleets that visit one of 

the affected ports 25 or more times, whether the fleet is involved in international, 

interstate, or intrastate trade. For related discussion, see response to Comments 15-26 

in 45-day comment responses. 

12. Comment: The Regulation is inherently discriminatory in nature. (PMSA) 

PMSA has previously commented on the fact that the regulation is discriminatory, 

arbitrary and capricious, (PMSA comment letter of December 3, 2007) and will 

not repeat those comments here but do include them by reference. However, we 

expand on those previous comments with another example of staff’s own 

assessment of alternatives that highlights that the selected regulatory process 

was not only discriminatory, but that its principle motivation for the proposed 

regulation was staff convenience rather than emission reductions. 

Staff states, as part of the “Analysis of Alternative Regulatory Approaches” on 

page X-24 and X-26, “ 1) targeting the highest-emitting ships to obtain the 

necessary reductions . . . Staff estimated that this regulatory approach would be 

as effective as the proposed regulation. An advantage to this approach is that it 

would identify the most cost-effective ships from which to reduce emissions; 

however, staff abandoned this approach because of the complexity and difficulty 

of tracking the ships that were required to reduce emissions.” 

In other words, staff decided that the most cost-effective and appropriate 

regulation should be discarded because it would be too difficult for staff to 

administer. Instead staff decided to that the regulation should only apply to three 

pre-selected types of vessels and they did not need to address either the 

frequency of visits, engine loads, or consider actual emissions from specific 

vessels at berth. The regulations simply require that terminals that receive more 

than 50 vessel calls in 2008 must complete terminal plans under the regulation. 

But only fleets of container, reefer vessels that make more than 25 visits to any 

of the six selected California ports, or passenger vessels that receive more than 

5 annual visits will be subject to the regulation. In contrast, any other type of 

vessel, regardless of how many visits it makes to the same ports, or the amount 
87 

of emissions from that vessel are exempt from the requirements of the regulation. 

Designation by type of vessel without provisions to excuse infrequent calls of low 

duration and activity cannot be justified on the basis of air quality improvements 

and is clearly arbitrary and capricious under the stated objectives of reducing 

emissions from vessels at berth. As such, with these provisions the regulation is 

discriminatory in nature and arbitrary and capricious in application. In order for 

this regulation to avoid being clearly discriminatory it should be applied to vessels 

based on the stated criteria that can be directly related to emissions from those 

vessels. 

Response: These comments are outside the scope of the 15-day changes; however, 

ARB disagrees that the regulations ARB developed to reduce at-berth emissions are 

affirmatively and facially discriminatory. ARB intends to develop regulations to reduce 

at-berth emissions from all ship types in a cost-effective manner. See response to 

Comments 8-14 in 45-day comment responses. 

ARB disagrees that the regulation is discriminatory, arbitrary and capricious. As 

discussed in response to Comments 8-14 in 45-day comment responses, the ARB 

intends to develop regulations to reduce at-berth emissions from all ship categories. 

This regulation, the first regulation to require at-berth emission reductions, affects three 

ship categories—container ships, passenger ships, and refrigerated cargo ships. A 

second regulation will be developed to reduce the at-berth emissions from the other 

ship categories. 

ARB disagrees that one of the alternative regulatory approaches was abandoned 

because it would be too difficult for ARB to administer. This approach would target the 

highest-emitting ships, typically the ships that make the most visits to a port, to obtain 

the necessary reductions. As stated in Chapter X of the TSD, “...staff abandoned this 

approach because of the complexity and difficulty of tracking the ships that were 

required to reduce emissions.” The issues related to the tracking of ships with this 

approach are: 1) concern that ship operators could operate fleets to avoid thresholds 

identified in the regulation; 2) greater opportunity for inadvertent noncompliance by 

fleets—operators may not know which ships in their fleets should be in compliance due 

to constant re-deployment of ships; 3) significant tracking and recordkeeping 

requirements (greater than what is required by this regulation); and 4) enforcement 

issues. It was for all of the above reasons that the ARB decided to develop the 

regulation based on fleet emission reductions approach—not because the alternative 

imposes an unacceptable administrative burden to ARB. 

F. Clarification of Vessel Type and Requirements 

13. Comment: Please confirm that the definition of “type of vessel” when referring to 

“fleet” means the broad type (container, tanker, etc.), and not the individual class 

or size ship. The latter approach would greatly segment the fleets, resulting in 

significantly increased resource demands to ensure compliance without 

commensurate environmental benefit. (MAERSK) 
88 

Response: “Type of vessel” refers to the broad type of vessel, e.g., container ship 

fleet. The type of vessels does not refer to individual classes of ships. 

14. Comment: The modified regulation requires additional clarification of the 

requirements of vessel fleets. PMSA has received comments that additional 

clarification of the intended application of § (d) (1) and § (d) (2) to vessel fleets is 

needed to avoid future confusion and inappropriate application of § (d) (2). We 

suggest some specific language in the Applicability and General Exemption 

Sections (§ (b) (b)), to the effect that “vessels fleets must communicate their 

decision to pursue vessel connection to a grid based shore power pathway under 

§ (d) (1), that must be implemented on or before January 1, 2014, or a equivalent 

emission pathway under section § (d) (2), that may include multiple strategies to 

reduce emissions from a vessel at berth that may include grid based shore 

power, distributed generation, or other methods to reduce emission from a vessel 

at berth beginning on or before January 1, 2010. The pathway selection must be 

made by the vessel fleet and communicated to the executive officer by to 

July 1, 2009.” (PMSA) 

Response: ARB believes the regulation is clear with regard to choosing a compliance 

option. The two compliance paths are called “options,” and there is language in the 

regulation that further clarifies choice—the introductory language in (d)(1)(A) and 

(d)(2)(A). Nevertheless, instead of imposing additional requirements, staff will continue 

to conduct substantial public outreach, including holding workshops, and providing 

informational material on ARB’s webpage, to ensure affected companies are aware of 

the regulation’s requirements. 

G. Complexity of Compliance Options 

15. Comment: We appreciate the inclusion of alternative compliance options and 

definition of requirements for credit for early action. However, we are concerned 

about the growing complexity and intrusiveness of these and other sections of 

the proposal. (MAERSK) 

Response: ARB understands that the regulation can be considered complex. ARB 

believes that some of the complexity of the regulation was removed by consolidating the 

four previous compliance options into two, more-similar options. 

The flexibility of the regulation provided by the technology-neutral Equivalent Emissions 

Reduction option necessarily requires considerable testing, record-keeping, and 

reporting to assure compliance. A variety of technologies could be used for compliance, 

each of them subject to verification of performance and proof of deployment. 

Significant revisions, released as part of the 15-day revisions, included the early and 

excess emission reduction program, and revisions to the emergency event definition 

and the impact of these revisions on compliance. These two revisions were requested 

by several commenters, and the inclusion of these revisions required additional text, as 
89 

indicated by this commenter. ARB anticipates additional outreach efforts to assist the 

affected terminals, ports, utilities, and ship operators in complying with this regulation 

through additional workshops and the availability of fact sheets and compliance material 

through ARB’s webpage. 

16. Comment: For alternative compliance, the required reductions are calculated vs. 

a baseline defined as operating the auxiliary engines on MGO. (MAERSK) 

a. It is unclear whether a cost justification was done using this basis. 

b. It is unclear without more lengthy analysis how this might impact selection of 

alternative reduction technologies. However this provision appears to raise 

the bar significantly for alternatives to shore power. Alternative technologies 

must also be “verified,” which has been demonstrated to be a slow and 

potentially costly process, which has been seen in other applications 

(e.g., diesel trucks) to result in periods without adequate verified 

commercially-available technologies. 

Response: The 45-day version of the regulation included the requirement that the 

baseline emissions be determined based on the use of marine diesel fuel. The auxiliary 

engine regulation, which was expected to be effective when this regulation is in place, 

allows the use of both marine gas oil and marine diesel fuel. To be consistent with the 

requirements of this regulation, the 15-day revisions subsequently clarified that the 

baseline can be based on either marine gas oil or marine diesel fuel. The intent of this 

requirement was to allow only reductions to be used for compliance with the regulation 

that have not been encumbered by regulations that are in place—in this case, the 

auxiliary engine regulation. As discussed in the response to Comment 161 in the 

45-day comment responses, the auxiliary engine regulation will reduce the emissions 

from uncontrolled levels of NOx emissions by six percent and PM emissions by 

75 percent. Because this provision was intended to reflect the emission impact of 

existing regulations, no cost justification was done or was necessary for this provision. 

Finally, this provision which reflects the expected emissions when the regulation 

becomes effective, should have no impact on the development of alternative control 

technologies to satisfy this regulation. 

The regulation does not require that alternative control technologies be accredited 

through the verification program. Instead, the regulation has a procedure that ensures 

the reductions from the use of alternative control techniques are quantifiable and 

enforceable. In most cases, an initial emission measurement will be necessary. If the 

same technology is used on several ships, then only a representative sample would 

needed to be tested. After the initial source test, the regulation requires follow-up 

emission measurements or appropriate monitoring to ensure that the technology is 

operating properly. 
90 

The verification procedures for in-use strategies to control emissions from diesel 

engines require a significant amount of testing for a technology to be verified. This 

regulation does not require any additional testing for technologies that are verified for 

marine engines. 

H. Emission Credit Use 

17. Comment: Early reductions and excess reductions cannot be applied to 2014, 

but can be applied to other compliance dates. No rationale is given for this. All 

compliance dates should be eligible for early reduction and excess reduction 

credits—early reductions are beneficial to the community and should be 

encouraged. (MAERSK) 

Response: ARB agrees that early reductions are beneficial to the community and 

should be encouraged. The intent of adding the availability of early and excess fleet 

emission credits is to provide the necessary incentives such that the fleets will reduce 

emissions earlier and maximize the reductions. Conversely, the use of these fleet 

emission credits will result in fewer reductions at later dates. For example, a fleet that 

can produce 100 tons of early credit prior to 2010 can use these fleet emission credits 

for compliance with 2010. The fleet complies for the purposes of the regulation, but in 

actuality, the fleet has a 100 ton shortfall for 2010. ARB believes the early and excess 

fleet emission credits are worthwhile as an incentive, but should not compromise 

important milestones in the regulation for 2014 and 2020. As discussed previously, the 

regulation’s reductions are necessary for the South Coast Air Basin’s compliance with 

the PM2.5 ambient air quality standard in 2015. These reductions must be in place 

January 1, 2014, to be accredited toward complying with the ambient air quality 

standard. Consequently, the regulation does not allow the use of these credits for the 

2014 milestone. To ensure that the regulation obtains all the reductions at full 

implementation, the regulation does not allow the use of these credits for the 2020 

milestone. For both milestones, the diesel PM reduction is also significant and 

warranted for public health protection. 

I. Calculations of PM Emissions 

18. Comment: Calculation of PM emissions: It is not clear what standards apply to 

the methods used to calculate early action reductions, which is new to this rule. 

Page II-25 of the Revisions to Title 13 states that: 

(C) In lieu of test data measured pursuant to paragraph (A) or (B) above, the 

following emission rates may be used as default values: 

• 13.9 g/kW-hr for NOx. 

• 0.38 g/kW-hr for PM if 0.11 to 0.5 percent sulfur marine gas oil or marine 

diesel oil is used as a fuel. 

• 0.25 g/kW-hr for PM if 0.10 or less sulfur content marine gas oil or marine 

diesel oil is used as a fuel. 
91 

This language states effectively, that the difference between the current ARB 

requirement and actual fuel sulfur cannot be used without testing. Such an 

application would not provide credit to an operator who voluntarily used lower 

sulfur fuel than required under the [now-suspended] auxiliary engine fuel rule. 

We believe that a calculation that takes into account specific fuel sulfur content, 

rather than just allowing two levels would more appropriately drive operators 

towards lower-sulfur fuel. Since such calculation methods exist, we believe that 

this should be substituted for the calculation above. Our calculations show that 

the difference between the actual and required fuel sulfur can be very important 

in estimating emissions reductions for early action credits. (MAERSK) 

Response: The calculation procedures outlined in subsection (e) of the regulation are 

intended to determine compliance with the requirements of the regulation: determining 

the percentage of onboard power reduction or the percent reduction in emissions from 

the ship’s auxiliary engines. Consequently, these calculation procedures do not apply 

directly to the determination of fleet emission credits. 

The regulation does not specify specific calculation procedures for determining fleet 

emission credit. Fleet emission credits will be granted by the Executive Officer of the 

Air Resources Board, pursuant to the regulation, if the reductions can be quantified, and 

the reductions can be characterized as either early reductions—reductions occurring 

prior to the regulation requiring the reduction—or reductions exceeding the 

requirements of the regulation at the time the reductions are generated. The specific 

procedure that is appropriate to use to calculate fleet emission credit will depend upon 

the type of reduction. There is no single method to quantify all potential emission 

reduction options. Consequently, the regulation allows flexibility in the method that is 

used to quantify fleet emission credits, including the method proposed by the 

commenter. 

Finally, in the calculation procedure outlined in subsection (e) of the regulation, a 

number of default values were provided. These default values were intended to simplify 

the calculations for the affected fleet operators by allowing the use of values that are 

consistent with “average values.” These values may not be representative of all cases, 

but the regulation allows the ship fleet operator to provide their own values, if the values 

are supported with emission testing or other type of support information. 

J. Shore Power and Other Technologies 

19. Comment: We reiterate our positions that shore power (“cold ironing”) is only 

one of a portfolio of reduction approaches, and should not be treated separately. 

(MAERSK ) 

a. Shore power is an expensive and inflexible technique, which benefits only 

those ports with significant installed infrastructure, and then only when 
92 

sufficient power is available and vessel engines are fully transitioned and off 

line. 

b. More holistic approaches to vessel emissions reductions can yield greater 

reductions more quickly and at lower cost. These include fuel switching, 

on-board and shore-based after-treatment techniques, engine and vessel 

design improvements, exhaust heat recovery, and higher efficiency on-board 

operating/control equipment for high energy use applications like refrigerated 

containers. 

c. Over-segmentation and prescriptive technology requirements will reduce 

investment in other technology innovations. 

Response: ARB agrees that shore power will require the ports, terminals, and ship 

operators to invest significantly in technology to allow shore power usage. However, 

such investment will result in significant emission reductions. Given that the use of 

grid-based shore power will be the technique of choice to reduce emissions when ships 

are at-berth, the regulation was developed considering two compliance options: 

grid-based shore power and the use of emission reduction techniques that obtain an 

equivalent emission reduction. These techniques could include shore power, distributed 

generation, on-board emission reduction devices, or shore-based emission reduction 

devices. In summary, the regulation provides an option—the Equivalent Emissions 

Reduction Option—that allows different emission reduction techniques to be used to 

provide the necessary emission reductions, as long as these reductions can be 

quantified and are enforceable. 

ARB agrees that prescriptive technology requirements will reduce the development of 

innovative techniques. ARB believes the suggested modifications affecting the 

compliance methods and schedules addresses this concern. These revisions, part of 

the staff’s suggested modifications approved by the Board and issued as a 15-day 

revision, both simplify the compliance options and also provides for a technology neutral 

path to comply with the regulation. 

K. 3 - 5 Hour Auxiliary Engine Use Provision 

20. Comment: There will be a period of time during shore power connect and also 

prior to shore power disconnect when the auxiliary engines will be operating. 

This time is not accounted for. (ACTI) 

Response: For fleets that are complying with the Reduced Onboard Generation option 

of the regulation [(d)(1)], the regulation limits the operation of auxiliary engines to three 

hours per visit for each visit that is intended to comply with the requirements of (d)(1). 

See response to Comments 121and122 in 45-day comment responses, for more detail 

regarding the establishment of this limit. 
93 

L. Violation Calculations 

21. Comment: The section on calculating violations defines an entirely new 

approach to such calculations. (Pages 43-45 of Attachment II and also 

Attachment IV). The staff reports recognize that this is a change and state that 

the constants selected were “mathematically determined to achieve the effective 

economic disincentive.” No detail on this mathematical determination was 

provided, and the 15-day comment period is insufficient for careful analysis of the 

potential legal and economic ramifications. We are not aware of other rules 

where the number of violations is calculated based on emissions or energy use 

divide by an arbitrary constant. As written this is not a “mere clarification” of the 

previous rule but an entire new penalty scheme, the function of which is untested 

and unclear. This hardly putting the regulated community on notice as to what 

their damages may be, even for inadvertent compliance. This leads to a final 

point: the formulae do not take into account intent and good faith efforts at 

compliance or force majeure, and thus may be too rigid and inequitable. 

(MAERSK) 

Response: The ARB disagrees that subsection (h) of the regulation defines an entirely 

new approach to calculating violations. Furthermore, this revision is not a clarification: 

staff recommended, and the Board approved, that revisions to the violations subsection 

of the regulation needed to be made to clearly delineate what is a violation when the 

vessel fleets do not comply with the fleet-averaging provisions of the regulation. (See 

Attachment B of Resolution 07-57.) 

ARB held a workshop on February 22, 2008, to discuss with stakeholders proposed 

revisions to the regulation, including revisions to violations section. The proposed 

revisions to the violations section were well-received because they better defined when 

violations of a fleet-averaging requirement occurred during a compliance period. 

Without the revisions, some interpreted that if a vessel fleet did not meet the 

requirements of the regulation—say, did not meet the minimum percentage of visits 

using shore power in a calendar quarter—then the fleet was in violation for the entire 

quarter, regardless of the amount of the shortfall. Fleets that barely missed the 

performance standard during a compliance period would have as many violations as 

those that did not come close to the performance standard. 

ARB proposed mathematical formulae in the revised regulation to determine the number 

of violations occurring when a fleet-averaging requirement was not met during a 

compliance period, thereby alleviating this inequity. The concept of determining the 

number of violations based on mathematical formulae has been used in other ARB 

regulations. For example, this concept is used in the ARB regulation: alternative 

control plan regulation for consumer products and aerosol coating products— 

Title 17, CCR, section 94546. 
94 

Regarding the specifics of the formulae, ARB developed the formulae to provide 

sufficient disincentive for noncompliance. ARB calculated several scenarios of 

noncompliance—not using shore power or control equipment, etc.—determined the cost 

of that noncompliance, and developed formulae that, at a minimum, would result in a 

potential penalty three to four times as high as the cost of noncompliance. ARB did not 

provide a penalty schedule for noncompliance, as those penalties are determined on a 

case-by-case basis using criteria in the Health and Safety Code. The formulae only 

determine the number of violations. 

Please note that subsection (e) of the regulation addresses regulatory relief from 

requirements due to emergency events. In these cases, the fleet calculations are 

adjusted and therefore not subject to enforcement action. The emergency event 

definition includes many cases where the ship operator intends to use shore power, but 

shore power is unavailable due to equipment breakdown or utility power issues—the 

“good faith effort” of the ship operator is recognized by the regulation in that this visit is 

not counted against the fleet. 

M. Terminal Plan 

22. Comment: The Terminals’ Plan Responsibility should be on the Port Authorities. 

While PMSA is appreciative of the efforts by CARB staff to take some reasonable 

steps in accommodating the complexities of the international maritime industry, 

the proposed regulations still threaten the viability of the established business 

models in operation at the ports of California, potentially upset existing lease 

agreements, and will throw our ports out of balance with ports throughout the rest 

of the country and internationally. (PMSA) 

23. Comment: As we have repeatedly asserted, PMSA continues to believe a more 

reasonable approach would be to place this planning burden upon the port 

authorities which are the only entities with land-use authority, retain ownership of 

capital improvements, and have the same access to cargo and vessel forecasts 

as terminal operators. We believe that the elevation of the terminal plans to Port 

plans will not only result in more robust and accurate predictions of future fleet 

operations but will also result in a more uniform approach to implementation of 

the requirements of the regulation and infrastructure investment. (PMSA) 

Response: These comments are outside the scope of the 15-days changes; however, 

see response to Comments 150-156 in 45-day comment responses. 

24. Comment: The fleet and vessel plans due beginning July 2009 now require 

individual vessel detail out through 2020. This is an extraordinary timeframe and 

level of detail for an industry where redeployments of vessels and whole routes is 

common. Our operations experts report the following challenges with the 

proposed requirements: 
95 

a. Marine terminals do not have the vessel information required to develop a 

plan that is valid for any extended period. The terminal is not responsible for 

planning and deciding which ships call at their terminal. 

b. Carriers change their plans frequently—every three months is a typical 

frequency. Any projection of vessels calls into the distant future is thus highly 

unreliable. (MAERSK) 

25. Comment: While PMSA appreciates the extensive efforts of staff to develop 

instructions and forms for the terminal operators to assist in the preparation of 

terminal plans, our primary concerns remain that, without the full cooperation of 

the Port authorities, public utilities, and the ocean-carriers, the information 

requested of the terminal operators is unlikely to be more than a “best guess.” 

This is especially true when the terminal plans provided in July 2009, will have to 

predict the deployment and characteristics of use of vessels beginning as late as 

2014. Given the highly dynamic nature of international trade the accuracy and 

value of these predictions are likely to be inaccurate requiring extensive 

modifications at a future date. (PMSA) 

Response: ARB agrees that long-range forecasts of ship movements to and from 

California ports are difficult to prepare with a high level of confidence, especially beyond 

2014. However, such estimates are necessary to ensure that the development of the 

shore-side infrastructure is adequate and that the ships are modified so that they will be 

able to use the infrastructure to satisfy the requirements of the regulation. For example, 

a vessel fleet operator may have plans to bring more or larger vessels to the terminal in 

the next several years. Larger vessels require higher levels of power; more vessels 

may require additional berths to be electrified. 

For the terminal plans, which are due by July 1, 2009, the regulation requires the 

terminal operator to provide information on the shipping activity and the schedule for 

providing the shore-side infrastructure necessary for the fleets to satisfy the 

requirements of the regulation. The regulation assumes that the terminal operator will 

work with the operators of the fleets that frequent their terminal to provide the necessary 

information on the fleets for the terminal plan. The information identified in the 

regulation for the fleet is provided on a fleet basis and no information is required for any 

specific ship. ARB only expects that the ship operators will provide the best estimate 

and, if necessary, these estimates can be updated as part of plan updates, as required 

by the regulation. 

For the vessel plans, the regulation requires detailed ship information for the applicable 

milestone. However, since the vessel plans are due six months prior to the applicable 

milestone, ARB believes that the fleet ship operators are able to provide specific 

information on the affected ships for the milestone that is applicable six months after the 

plan is submitted to the Executive Officer of the ARB. In recognition that the ship 

operators have historically changed their ship activity plans frequently, the regulation 

requires only fleet level information for other milestones that will become applicable 
96 

after six months. Finally, we note that the information provided is a plan, not a 

commitment. 

N. Annual Statement of Compliance 

26. Comment: An annual statement of compliance is required starting March 2011. 

This report requires vessel specific emissions calculations, TEU capacities and 

calculated energy use. 

a. We would like to confirm that the required reports are annual and not 

expected to be updated with each vessel redeployment. 

b. There is no legal definition of vessel TEU capacity. Nominal capacity is 

declared by each vessel owner. 

c. We also question whether the paperwork burden has been considered for 

both the industry and the staff. (MAERSK) 

Response: The annual statement of compliance is filed once a year, representing 

compliance with the regulation for the previous year. The fleet information provided for 

the annual statement of compliance should address vessels that visited one of the six 

California ports affected by the regulation for the previous year. Redeployment of 

individual vessels does not affect compliance. The compliance report will simply 

indicate which vessels in the fleet visited that port, how many total visits were made by 

the fleet, what mitigation measures were employed for those visits, and whether or not 

the applicable performance standards were met by the fleet for the compliance period. 

ARB understands that there is no legal definition of twenty-foot-equivalent unit (TEU) 

capacity for container ships and, consequently, there is some variation in the reported 

TEU capacity in the industry. However, since TEU capacity is related to the overall size 

of the vessel, and therefore is one of the indicators of the potential power usage by the 

ship, it provides ARB staff with a cross reference to check the power usage listed for the 

fleet in the annual statement of compliance. A nominal TEU capacity for a vessel can 

be used for reporting, as long as that figure is used consistently. 

ARB understands that the recordkeeping requirements of the regulation can appear 

burdensome. The degree of recordkeeping is related to the flexibility of the regulation—

numerous technologies can be used for compliance, and each of these technologies 

and their employment must be well-documented—and the fact that the vessels sail 

away. When the regulated source—the vessels—depart, an enforcement officer must 

rely on records to determine what occurred during the visits. For example, if the vessel 

were to use shore power during a visit, a log of connection, electrical use, and 

disconnection could confirm that. Recordkeeping costs were included in staff’s cost 

analysis for this regulation. 

Moreover, while fleet averaging provides the affected fleets flexibility for satisfying the 

requirements of the regulation, it is also more difficult to enforce. Compliance cannot be 

verified by testing one ship. Instead, the enforcement is based on recordkeeping for the 
97 

entire fleet. The proof that the fleet is complying with the regulation is based on records 

kept for each ship in the fleet and the subsequent reports—the annual statement of 

compliance—submitted to the Executive Officer. The records to be retained by the 

fleets are the minimum necessary to demonstrate compliance with the rule. 

ARB intends to work with the affected fleets to minimize the recordkeeping efforts by 

developing the necessary forms, providing for electronic submittal, and providing 

assistance, such as training workshops. Additionally, the development of these forms 

will clearly define what is necessary to demonstrate compliance with the regulation. 

O. Cost Effectiveness 

27. Comment: We stand by the comments on this program which we submitted in 

2006 (Attachment A), and feel they have not been fully addressed. Therefore, we 

ask that these be incorporated again into the record. In particular, our comments 

on cost effectiveness and economic impacts were not addressed; as 

documented, we believe the cost effectiveness analysis is inaccurate, and 

therefore the underlying justification for the rule is unsupported. In addition, no 

new cost-impact data is provided in these revisions, and we believe the impacts 

could be significant. (MAERSK) 

28. Comment: The ultimate cost and benefit of the modified regulation are 

significantly different from those of the regulation approved by the Board. PMSA 

and others have previously commented that there is substantial uncertainty of the 

impacts and benefits of this regulation primarily due to the uncertainties in the 

cost of the shore-side infrastructure, the cost to modify the vessels, and the 

variability in vessel visit duration and auxiliary engine load while at berth. Now, 

because of the additional requirements that vessel fleets’ compliance will now be 

enforced on percent emissions reductions in addition to percent vessel calls, our 

members are faced with a radically different regulation. The economic impacts of 

meeting both requirements has not been assessed anywhere in the record 

supplied by staff. The cost-effectiveness of adding this requirement is nonexistent and, we believe significant. Because of this radical change to the nature 

of the regulation, the consequences of which were not provided to the Board 

when making there decision, PMSA insists that the economic impacts of the 

revised regulation be completed and the results of that analysis be provided for 

full public review and comment. Following the public review, the regulation, with 

the completed staff analysis, should be submitted to the Board for reconsideration. (PMSA) 

Response: ARB disagrees that the cost-effectiveness analysis for the regulation is 

inaccurate. Additionally, the first commenter indicated that comments provided on the 

ARB draft report: Evaluation of Cold-ironing Ocean-Going Vessels at California Ports

(2006), particularly the comment on cost effectiveness and economic impacts were not 

addressed. 
98 

As discussed in the section “Comments by Reference” of the 45-day Comments, the 

comments on this report are not directly applicable to the regulation. However, ARB 

considered all of the comments received on the 2006 Draft Evaluation report, and 

discussed these comments extensively with stakeholders at a workshop on 

January 11, 2007. 

For example, ARB revised the hotelling times for ships used in the analysis in response 

to the comment that hotelling times for 2004 were not representative due to labor 

issues. In response to the comment that ships are regularly re-deployed to different 

parts of the world by ship operators, ARB assumed, for the cost-effectiveness analysis, 

that each ship would be re-deployed during the regulatory period which resulted in twice 

the number of ships being equipped with shore power equipment. Consequently, the 

cost to modify ships represents about 80 percent of the total cost for the regulation. In 

response to the comment that sample terminals do not correctly represent the container 

industry as a whole, cost-effectiveness estimates were provided in Chapter X of the 

TSD that indicated the range of cost-effectiveness on a terminal basis for all terminals 

affected by the regulation. These terminal-based cost-effectiveness analyses used the 

specific data applicable to that terminal, including hotelling times unique to the ships 

that visit the terminal and the ship specific characteristics for that terminal during 2006 

(power needs, number of visits, etc). Finally, in response to the comments on the cost 

of electrical power, ARB consulted with the utilities and used the appropriate electricity 

utility tariff schedules for shore power. 

ARB agrees that there are uncertainties in determining the impacts and benefits of the 

regulation. Because of this uncertainty, ARB took a conservative approach in 

developing the cost-effectiveness analysis by using conservative estimates of cost of 

shore-side infrastructure and ship retrofit costs—values that were not the highest in the 

range of information collected by ARB, but were well above the average of the range of 

information collected by ARB. In addition, as discussed above, the variation of hotelling 

times was accounted for in the terminal specific analysis. In summary, the regulation is 

cost-effective using ARB’s conservative approach. ARB anticipates that the actual 

costs will likely be lower and the regulation will prove to be more cost-effective than staff 

estimated. For example, the auxiliary engine fuel price used in the cost-effectiveness 

analysis conducted for the TSD was $550 per metric ton. Since that time, fuel prices 

have reached as high as $1,300 per metric ton and continue to hover around $1,000 per 

ton. At those prices, turning off the auxiliary engines and using shore power would be 

even more cost-effective. 

While significant changes to the compliance options of the regulation have been made, 

and issued as part of the 15-day modified regulation order, these revisions do not affect 

the overall cost of the regulation. As discussed above, the regulation has two paths for 

compliance. The main compliance option initially was based upon requiring a certain 

percentage of visits satisfy a limited auxiliary engine operation limit. The regulation’s 

cost was based upon compliance with this option, since the technique of choice will 

most likely be grid-based shore power. As part of the 15-day modified regulation order, 

an additional requirement was added that requires the fleets’ onboard electrical 
99 

generation be reduced by 50 percent in 2014, 70 percent in 2017, and 80 percent in 

2020. ARB added this provision before the Board hearing to assure sufficient emission 

reductions would be achieved with grid-based shore power. Power requirements are 

directly related to emissions. 

The impact of this revision on most fleets is that no additional ships will need to be 

modified to add shore power equipment, but some ships in the fleet may need to be 

modified sooner. ARB has determined that only one of the 64 affected fleets may need 

to modify one additional ship. As indicated in Chapter X of the TSD, the regulation is 

expected to affect 1,450 ships, and the cost to modify ships is 80 percent of the total 

cost of the regulation: the cost to modify this additional ship is insignificant compared to 

the total cost to modify all 1,450 ships. Consequently, the revision is not expected to 

change the cost of the regulation. 

29. Comment: We particularly question the cost-effectiveness of shore power 

when layered on top of other emissions reductions programs such as vessel 

engine fuel and technology requirements and vessel speed reduction. 

(MAERSK) 

Response: See Comment 161 in the 45-day comments responses on assumptions 

regarding applicable baseline fuel. ARB assumed that the auxiliary engine fuel 

regulation would remain in place when this regulation takes effect. The costs and 

benefits of the regulation were based on this assumption. If heavier, higher-sulfur fuels 

are used in auxiliary engines when this regulation takes effect, the benefits of this 

regulation will mushroom, as the emission reductions credited to this regulation will be 

substantially greater. 

In addition, the vessel speed reduction (VSR) program that is being considered by ARB 

would have no impact on reducing at-berth emissions and therefore would also have no 

impact to the cost effectiveness of the regulation. The VSR regulation would only affect 

the emissions of the ship while the ship is traveling in open waters. 

P. 15-Day Comment Period 

30. Comment: The 15-day comment period is entirely too brief for full analysis of 

changes so far-reaching and detailed. This is especially true for a notice issued 

after business hours on a Friday in late August, when many people are on 

vacation or out of the office. (MAERSK) 

a. Under California Government Code Section 11346.4(a), CARB is required to 

provide notice of its proposed regulations at least 45 days prior to the hearing 

and close of any public comment period. We note CARB is allowing only 

15 days for public comments in response to the regulations published on 

August 22, 2008. This is not adequate time. The 15-day period must be 

expanded to 45 days as the 15-day comment period is not authorized by law. 

Under California Government Code Section 11346.8 CARB is allowed to 
100 

adopt or amend an existing proposed regulation allowing 15 days public 

notice only when changes to a proposed regulation are "nonsubstantial," 

"solely grammatical in nature," or "sufficiently related to the original text that 

the public was adequately placed on notice." 

b. The changes announced on August 22, 2008, are substantive, complex and 

require careful evaluation as an entirely new proposal. Entirely new sections 

and new definitions were added, and the calculations methodologies provided 

for alternative compliance require additional technical analysis. In addition, 

the approach to defining number of violations based on energy use or pounds 

emitted appears to break entirely new ground. The fact that Staff took 

eight months to write the modifications is evidence enough that these are 

complex, substantive and merit a new public review period as this is, in 

reality, a new proposed set of regulations. 

c. These changes materially alter the scope of the rules and the timetables for 

compliance, and are much more than mere clarifications. We reserve the 

right to submit additional comments within 45 days upon a more thorough 

review of the proposal. 

Response: ARB understands that the 15-day revisions were substantial compared to 

the proposed draft regulation originally released October 9, 2007, but disagrees that the 

15-day comment period was too brief to review these revisions. 

After considering stakeholder input during the 45-day comment period, staff 

recommended to the Board a proposed regulation that contained significant 

modifications. These modifications were enumerated in Attachment B of Board 

Resolution 07-57. As staff began making these and Board-directed revisions to the 

adopted regulation, staff held a workshop on February 22, 2008, to distribute and 

discuss with stakeholders the revised regulation. 

Furthermore, staff met personally with representatives of the commenter on 

March 6, 2008, to discuss the revised regulation, as released for the February 

workshop. Staff also held joint workshops with the Port of Los Angeles on May 7, 2008, 

and the Port of Long Beach on May 1, 2008, to discuss the requirements of the revised 

regulation. Representatives for the commenter attended all three workshops. Although 

the last edits to the regulation were not completed until shortly before the 15-day 

comment period, staff asserts that there was ample opportunity to discuss the revised 

regulation. 

Moreover, staff disagrees that the 15-day revisions should be subject to a 45-day 

review. California Government Code Section 11346.8(c) states, in part: “No state 

agency may adopt, amend, or repeal a regulation which has been changed from that 

which was originally made available to the public pursuant to Section 11346.5, unless 

the change is... (2) sufficiently related to the original text that the public was adequately 

placed on notice that the change could result from the originally proposed regulatory 
101 

action. If a sufficiently related change is made, the full text of the resulting adoption, 

amendment, or repeal, with the change clearly indicated, shall be made available to the 

public for at least 15 days before the agency adopts, amends, or repeals the resulting 

regulation.” ARB released for public review the revised regulation as 15-day revisions 

on August 22, 2008. The revisions to the regulation were sufficiently related to the 

original text and well within the scope of original notice. 

Q. Proprietary Information 

31. Comment: Some of the information requested may well constitute confidential 

or proprietary business information, yet provisions to safeguard against 

unauthorized and inappropriate public disclosure are not included in the rules. 

(MAERSK) 

32. Comment: We are concerned about the potential release of proprietary 

information included in these forms and in the fleet plans. CARB should provide 

a process to allow for companies to specify that the information they are 

providing is proprietary in nature and should not be made public without 

expressed written permission. (PMSA) 

Response: ARB agrees that some of the information that is required by the regulation 

for the annual statement of compliance may be confidential. The Responsible Official 

signing the annual statement of compliance should identify which portions of the 

statement are considered confidential. Any information identified as confidential in the 

annual statement of compliance will be treated as confidential pursuant to the California 

Public Records Act. 
102 

V. CORRECTIONS TO NON-CANCER HEALTH IMPACTS AND VALUATIONS, 

AND TO REFERENCES IN THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT

ARB notes the following corrections to the non-cancer health impacts and valuations 

and to the references in the Technical Support Document. 

1. Non-Cancer Health Effects and Valuations 

ARB underestimated the non-cancer health impacts and valuations that were presented 

in Chapter VIII of the Technical Support Document. ARB did not take into account the 

emission reductions from 2020 to 2030 from container ships when determining the 

health impacts that would be avoided from implementing the regulation and the 

economic value of avoiding those impacts. The majority of ships impacted by the 

regulation will be container ships. These ships are periodically deployed to other areas 

of the world requiring other ships to be repositioned to serve California ports. These 

other ships will need to be retrofit in order to connect to shore power when at a 

California port. Consequently, ARB assumed a longer lifetime for the regulation (2009-

2030) when determining the costs to container ship companies for complying with the 

regulation and the total emission reductions attributed to implementing the regulation. 

 Non-Cancer Health Effects

The statewide cumulative impacts of the emissions reduced through this regulation from 

year 2009 through 2030 are approximately: 

• 990 premature deaths (280 to 1700, 95% confidence interval (CI)) 

• 210 hospital admissions due to respiratory causes (140 to 290, 95% CI) 

• 390 hospital admissions due to cardiovascular causes (250 to 600, 95% CI) 

• 29,000 cases of asthma-related and other lower respiratory symptoms 

(11,000 to 46,000, 95% CI) 

• 2,400 cases of acute bronchitis (0 to 5,100, 95% CI) 

• 170,000 work loss days (140,000 to 200,000, 95% CI) 

• 1,000,000 minor restricted activity days (810,000 to 1,200,000, 95% CI) 

The following table lists the impacts associated with primary and secondary diesel 

emissions separately. The methodology for estimating these health impacts can be 

found in Appendix A of the Emission Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement in 

California (ARB, 2006) 1

. 

 

1

 http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/gmerp/march21plan/appendix_a.pdf 
103 

Table III: Estimated Total Health Benefits Associated with Reductions in 

Hotelling Emissions from Container Ships, Passenger Ships, and 

Refrigerated Cargo Ships (2009-2030)* 

Endpoint Pollutant

# of Cases 

95% C.I. 

(Low) 

# of Cases 

(Mean) 

# of Cases 

95% C.I. 

(High) 

PM 78 280 490

Premature Death NOx 200 710 1,200

Total 280 990 1700

PM 39 61 84

NOx 96 150 210 Hospital admissions 

(Respiratory)

Total 140 210 290

PM 71 110 170

NOx 180 280 430 Hospital admissions 

(Cardiovascular) 

Total 250 390 600

PM 3,200 8,400 13,000

NOx 8,100 21,000 33,000

Asthma & Lower 

Respiratory 

Symptoms Total 11,000 29,000 46,000

PM 0 690 1,500

Acute Bronchitis NOx 0 1,700 3,600

Total 0 2,400 5,100

PM 42,000 50,000 58,000

Work Loss Days NOx 100,000 120,000 140,000

Total 140,000 170,000 200,000

PM 230,000 290,000 340,000

NOx 580,000 710,000 840,000 Minor Restricted 

Activity Days 

Total 810,000 1,000,000 1,200,000

*

Health effects from primary and secondary PM are labeled PM and NOx, respectively. The sum of 

PM and NOx impacts may not equal the total given due to rounding. 

 Economic Valuation of Non-Cancer Health Effects 

The table below lists the valuation of avoiding various health effects, compiled from the 

ARB and U.S. EPA publicationsupdated in 2006 dollars. The valuations based on 

willingness to pay (WTP), as well as those based on wages, are adjusted for anticipated 

growth in real income. 
104 

Table IV: Undiscounted Unit Values for Health Effects 

 (At various income levels in 2006 dollars) A 

Health Endpoint 2007 2009 2030 References 

Mortality

Premature death ($ million) 8.2 8.3 9.5 U.S. EPA (1999, p. 70-72, 

2000, (2004, p. 9-121) 

Hospital Admissions 

Cardiovascular ($ thousands) 44 45 57 ARB (2003), p. 63 

Respiratory ($ thousands) 36 36 47 ARB (2003), p. 63 

Minor Illnesses 

Acute Bronchitis 452 454 474 U.S. EPA (2004), 9-158

Lower Respiratory Symptoms 20 20 21 U.S. EPA (2004), 9-158 

Work loss day 192 198 273 2002 California wage data, 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Minor restricted activity day (MRAD) 64 64 67 U.S. EPA (2004), 9-159 

A The value for premature death is adjusted for projected real income growth, net of 

0.4 elasticity. Wage-based values (Work Loss Days) are adjusted for projected real income growth, 

as are WTP-derived values (Lower Respiratory Symptoms, Acute Bronchitis, and MRADs). Health 

endpoint values based on cost-of-illness (Cardiovascular and Respiratory Hospitalizations) are 

adjusted for the amount by which projected CPI for Medical Care (hospitalization) exceeds all-item 

CPI. 

Benefits from the implementing the regulation are substantial. ARB estimates 

cumulative benefits over the period from 2009 to 2030 to be nearly $5.7 billion using a 

three percent discount rate or $3.1 billion using a seven percent discount rate2. A large 

proportion of the monetized benefits results from avoiding premature death. The 

estimated benefits from avoided morbidity are approximately $87 million with a three 

percent discount rate and nearly $49 million with a seven percent discount rate. 

Approximately 71percent of the benefits are associated with reduced PM from NOx 

emissions, and the remaining 29 percent from direct PM emissions. 

2. References 

There were title names and date errors in the references for various chapters in and 

appendices to the Technical Support Document (TSD). In addition, one reference was 

inadvertently included in a chapter and appendix to the TSD. ARB notes the following 

corrections to the references by chapter and appendix. 

 

2

 ARB follows U.S. EPA practice in reporting results using both three percent and seven percent discount 

rates. 
105 

1) References at the end of Chapter III: 

Dates were changed to three references and should appear as follows: 

Port of Oakland. Maritime: Terminal Specifications; October 12, 2007. 

http://www.portofoakland.com/maritime/terminal.asp

Port of Long Beach. Trade/Commerce: Cargo/Tenants – Containerized, Dry Bulk, Liquid 

Bulk, Break Bulk & Ro Ro; October 12, 2007. 

http://www.polb.com/economics/cargotenant/default.asp 

Port of Los Angeles. Facilities: Passenger Terminal, Automobile Terminal, Breakbulk 

Terminals, Container Terminals, Dry Bulk Terminals, and Liquid Bulk Terminals; 

October 12, 2007 http://www.portoflosangeles.org/facilities.htm 

2) References at the end of Chapter IV: 

Dates were changed to two references and should appear as follows: 

 

Hollman, Michael (MPH). “Cold ironing gathers momentum.” Germanischer Lloyd 

nonstop. Edition 2: 26-27. February 2006. http://www.glgroup.com/images/glgroup/nonstop_2006-02_E.pdf

Port of Los Angeles. “Evergreen Group’s First ‘Green’ Mega Ship, Ever Superb, Makes 

Her Maiden Call at the Port of Los Angeles.” Press Release. September 20, 2006. 

http://www.portoflosangeles.org/Press/REL_Ever_Superb_First_Call.pdf

3) References at the end of Chapter VII: 

The date was deleted from one reference and changed for four others and should 

appear as follows: 

Advanced Cleanup Technologies, Inc. ACTI When Experience Counts; Informational 

Brochure 

Public Utilities Commission (PUC). Chapter 3, Article 1, Section 451-457; Public 

Utilities Code. Date accessed: October 17, 2007. 

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=puc&group=00001-

01000&file=451-467

Sea to Sky Pollution Solutions. WiFE on Demand; October 2, 2007. 

http://www.seatoskypollutionsolutions.com/solution-wife.php 
106 

U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration Office of Shipbuilding and 

Marine Technology. Energy Technologies. Newsletter No. 3, Spring 2003. 

http://www.marad.dot.gov/nmrec/energy_technologies/images/ETNo3Spring03.htm

Date accessed: October 17, 2007 

U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration Office of Shipbuilding and 

Marine Technology. Energy Technologies. Newsletter No. 2, Fall 2002. 

http://www.marad.dot.gov/nmrec/energy_technologies/images/ETNo2Fall2002.htm

Date accessed: October 17, 2007. 

In addition, the following reference was deleted as it does not pertain to the chapter: 

Joseph Calavita, California Air Resources Board. Personal communication. 

October 5-6, 2006. 

4) References at the end of Chapter VIII: 

The date was changed in one reference, and the title was changed in another. The 

references should appear as follows: 

Metallextraktion AB (MEAB). September 2003. http://www.meab-mx.se/en/index.htm

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Assessment and Standards Division, 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of 

Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines. EPA420-R-03-008. CD-ROM. April 2003. 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cleaner-nonroad/r03008.pdf

5) References at the end of Chapter X: 

Dates were changed to three references and should appear as follows: 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company. “Tariff Book.” Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 

March 19, 2005. http://www.pge.com/tariffs/ERS.SHTML#ERS (PG&E, 2005) 

San Diego Gas and Electric. “Electric Tariff Book - Commercial/Industrial Rates.” San 

Diego Gas and Electric. May 29, 2005. 

http://www.sdge.com/regulatory/tariff/elec_commercial.shtml

Southern California Edison. “Regulatory – SCE Tariff Books, General Service – 

Industrial Rate Schedules.” Southern California Edison. April 14, 2005. 

http://www.sce.com/AboutSCE/Regulatory/tariffbooks/ratespricing/businessrates.htm
107 

6) References at the end of Appendix B: 

The date and title was changed in one reference and should appear as follows: 

California Air Resources Board. A Critical Review of Ocean-Going Vessel Particulate

Matter Emission Factors; October 9, 2007. In press.

7) References at the end of Appendix F: 

The date was deleted from one reference and changed for another and should appear 

as follows: 

Advanced Cleanup Technologies, Inc. ACTI When Experience Counts; Informational 

Brochure 

DieselNet. Diesel Emission Control; DieselNet Technology Guide.

August 29, 2007. http://www.dieselnet.com/tech/engine_control.html

In addition, the following reference was deleted as it does not pertain to the chapter: 

Joseph Calavita, California Air Resources Board. Personal communication. 

October 5-6, 2006.