Staff Report: 

Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed 

Rulemaking 

Regulations to Reduce Emissions from Diesel Auxiliary 

Engines on Ocean-Going Vessels While At-Berth at a 

California Port 

Stationary Source Division 

Project Assessment Branch 

October 2007 

State of California 

AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

STAFF REPORT: 

INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS 

FOR THE PROPOSED RULEMAKING 

Public Hearing to Consider 

ADOPTION OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS TO REDUCE EMISSIONS FROM 

DIESEL AUXILIARY ENGINES ON OCEAN-GOING VESSELS WHILE 

 AT-BERTH AT A CALIFORNIA PORT 

To be considered by the Air Resources Board on December 6 and 7, 2007, at: 

Air Resources Board 

Auditorium 

9530 Telstar Avenue 

El Monte, California 91731 

Stationary Source Division

Robert Fletcher, Chief 

Robert Barham, Ph.D., Assistant Chief 

Project Assessment Branch

Michael Tollstrup, Chief 

Health and Exposure Assessment Branch (RD)

Linda Smith, Ph.D., Chief 

Technical Analysis Section

Peggy Taricco, Manager 

Health and Ecosystems Assessment Section (RD)

Hien Tran, Ph.D., Manager 

Project Assessment Section

Michael Waugh, Manager 

Regulatory Support Section (PTSD) 

Todd Sax, D. Env., Manager 

This report has been prepared by the staff of the Air Resources Board. 

Publication does not signify that the contents reflect the views and policies of the 

Air Resources Board, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products 

constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. 

State of California 

AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

REGULATIONS TO REDUCE EMISSIONS FROM DIESEL AUXILIARY 

ENGINES ON OCEAN-GOING VESSELS WHILE AT-BERTH AT A 

CALIFORNIA PORT 

Contributing Authors

Andrew Alexis 

Alvaro Alvarado, Ph.D. 

Raymond Asregadoo, P.E. 

Joe Calavita 

Grant Chin 

Pingkuan Di, Ph.D., P.E. 

Reza Mahdavi, Ph.D. 

Lori Miyasato, Ph.D. 

Brad Penick 

Marcelle Surovik 

Kelly Weatherford 

Legal Counsel

Floyd Vergara, P.E., Office of Legal Affairs 

Supporting Divisions

Planning and Technical Support Division (PTSD) 

Research Division (RD) 

Acknowledgements

This report was prepared with the assistance and support from the other 

divisions and offices of the Air Resources Board. In addition, we would like to 

acknowledge the assistance and cooperation that we have received from many 

individuals and organizations. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents Page

Executive Summary...................................................................................................ES-1 

1. Introduction ...........................................................................................................1 

 

2. Determination of Affected Ocean-Going Vessel Categories..................................4 

3. Emissions Inventory ..............................................................................................6 

 

4. Health Risk............................................................................................................8 

5. Summary of the Proposed Regulation ................................................................10 

6. Emission Reductions...........................................................................................14 

7. Risk Reduction....................................................................................................16 

 

8. Environmental Impact .........................................................................................19 

9. Impact on Global Warming..................................................................................19 

10. Economic Impacts...............................................................................................20 

11. Cost to Local Agencies .......................................................................................22 

12. Cost-Effectiveness ..............................................................................................23 

13. Feasibility of Proposed Regulation......................................................................24 

14. Alternatives Considered ......................................................................................26 

15. Outreach .............................................................................................................27 

16. Environmental Justice .........................................................................................28 

17. Implementation and Enforcement .......................................................................28 

18. Recommendation................................................................................................28 

Appendix A - Proposed Regulations
List of Tables

Contents Page

Table 1: Estimated 2006 Hotelling Emissions by Ship Category ................................. 6

Table 2: Estimated 2006 Hotelling Emissions by Port (Tons per Day).......................... 7 

Table 3: Projected 2014 and 2020 Emissions from Container Ships, Passenger 

Ships, and Reefer Ships ................................................................................ 8

Table 4: Emission Benefits from Implementation of the Proposed Regulation ........... 16 

Table 5: Summary of Cost-Effectiveness for Shore-Power......................................... 24

 List of Figures 

Contents Page

Figure 1: Projected Diesel PM Emissions With and Without the Proposed 

Regulation..................................................................................................... 15

Figure 2: Projected NOx Emissions With and Without the Proposed Regulation......... 15

Figure 3: Projected Residential Areas Impacted by Hotelling Emissions at 

POLA/POLB by 2014.................................................................................... 17

Figure 4: Projected Numbers of Population Affected by Hotelling Emissions at 

POLA/POLB by 2014.................................................................................... 17

Figure 5: Projected Residential Areas Impacted by Hotelling Emissions at 

POLA/POLB by 2020.................................................................................... 18

Figure 6: Projected Numbers of Population Affected by Hotelling Emissions at 

POLA/POLB by 2020.................................................................................... 18 
ES-1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The California Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) staff is proposing two 

essentially identical regulations to reduce diesel particulate matter (PM) and 

oxides of nitrogen (NOx) from diesel-fueled auxiliary engines used aboard 

ocean-going ships while docked or at-berth, at a California port. For the 

remainder of this report, the regulations will collectively be referred to as “the 

regulation.” The proposed Regulations to Reduce Emissions from Diesel 

Auxiliary Engines on Ocean-Going Vessels While At Berth at a California Port 

(regulation) is part of ARB’s ongoing effort to reduce PM and NOx emissions 

from diesel-fueled engines and vehicles and improve air quality associated with 

goods movement. A copy of the proposed regulation is provided in Appendix A 

of this report. 

Auxiliary engines are run to power lighting, ventilation, pumps, communication, 

and other onboard equipment while a ship is docked at a berth, or “hotelled.” 

The proposed regulation would require operators of vessels meeting specified 

criteria to turn off their auxiliary engines for most of their stay in port. We 

anticipate that such vessels would then receive their electrical power from the 

shore, or use an alternative, but equally effective, means of emission reductions. 

The process of shutting off engines and connecting to power on shore is 

sometimes referred to as “shore power” or “cold-ironing.” The term “cold-ironing” 

is derived from the metal aboard the ships “going cold” when combustion 

equipment is shut down. 

There are six major categories of ocean-going vessels that visit California ports: 

container ships, passenger ships, refrigerated cargo ships (reefers), bulk ships, 

tankers, and vehicle carriers. Over 2000 of these ocean-going vessels call at 

California ports each year. In 2006, about 1.8 tons per day (TPD) of diesel PM 

and 21.1 TPD of NOx were emitted from diesel-fueled auxiliary engines on 

ocean-going vessels while at-berth in California ports. 

Staff is proposing to reduce hotelling emissions from three out of the six major 

vessel categories noted above; through a separate rulemaking, staff will address 

the hotelling emissions from the other three categories at a later date. This 

bifurcation of regulated vessel categories was based on information presented in 

an earlier ARB report, Evaluation of Cold-ironing Ocean-Going Vessels at 

California Ports (Evaluation Report), which was released as a draft in March 

2006. The purpose of the Evaluation Report was to present an analysis of the 

feasibility and cost-effectiveness of requiring ships to shut off auxiliary engines, 

while in port and connect to power provided at the berth, as a potential emission 

control measure. The Evaluation Report was intended as a prelude to this 

rulemaking and was therefore never published as a final report. Nevertheless, 

the Evaluation Report provided a useful foundation on which this Staff Report 

was based. 
ES-2 

From the Evaluation Report, staff found the most attractive ship candidates for 

shore power to be those ships that make frequent visits to a California port, 

spend a sufficient number of hours at berth, and have an ample power demand 

while hotelled. Accordingly, the proposal specifically targets hotelling emissions 

from ship categories that meet these criteria—container ships, passenger ships, 

and reefer ships—and the California ports where these ships frequently visit—the 

Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, San Diego, San Francisco, and 

Hueneme. 

As noted, staff will be proposing a separate rulemaking to reduce emissions from 

the other ship categories that were not considered as good candidates for shore 

power at this time—i.e., bulk ships, tankers, and vehicle carriers. Staff 

anticipates presenting to the Board a proposal covering those other ship 

categories in late 2008. We expect that at-berth emissions from tugboats 

operating at California ports will also be addressed at that time. 

Diesel PM was identified as a toxic air contaminant in 1998. Long-term 

exposures to diesel PM increase the risk of developing lung cancer. Non-cancer 

health effects, including premature deaths and respiratory disease, are 

associated with exposure to directly emitted diesel PM and secondary diesel PM 

formed when NOx emissions from diesel engines react in the atmosphere to form 

nitrates. A recent ARB exposure study at the ports of Los Angeles and Long 

Beach shows that over two million people live in areas around the ports with 

predicted cancer risks of greater than 10 in a million due to hotelling emissions 

from ocean-going vessels. From that study and information developed for this 

rulemaking, staff estimates that about 61 premature deaths per year are 

attributable to current exposure to direct and secondary diesel PM from hotelling 

emissions. 

The proposed regulation allows for two main options to reduce hotelling 

emissions. First, ship operators can shut down their auxiliary engines while in 

port, except for three or five permissible hours of total operation per visit (“limited 

engine use” option). Alternatively, operators can implement a fleet-based option 

to reduce the emissions from the auxiliary engines in the fleet by specified 

percentages while docked (“emissions reduction option”). 

The “limited engine use” option requires that the operators of container ships, 

passenger ships, and reefers that visit California ports shut down their auxiliary 

engines for most of their stay while hotelling. Auxiliary engines would be allowed 

to run for three or five hours per visit. Specifically, these auxiliary engines must 

be shut down for at least 50 percent of a fleet’s total visits to a California port in 

2014 and at least 80 percent of the fleet’s total visits to a port in 2020. While 

auxiliary engines are shut down, the ship’s onboard electrical needs must be 

satisfied by some other source of power, presumably the region’s electrical grid. 
ES-3 

An alternative compliance option is the “emissions reduction option,” in which 

ship operators would be required to reduce their fleet’s auxiliary engine 

emissions at a port by specific percentages and by specific dates. The specified 

percent reductions apply to the fleet’s engines, rather than to individual engines. 

The compliance dates for this option vary based on the emission reduction 

technique applied to the fleets. 

The emission reduction techniques that could be applied to a fleet include: 

1) using selected vessels for grid-supplied power based on potential auxiliary 

engine emission reductions rather than fleet visit percentages; 2) using 

distributed generation equipment to provide power to a vessel; 3) using 

alternative emission controls onboard a vessel or located adjacent to the vessel; 

and 4) using a combination of these techniques. 

Vessel owners or operators, terminals, and ports would also be subject to 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 

Staff projects that the proposed regulation would reduce hotelling diesel PM and 

NOx emissions from container ships, passenger ships, and refrigerated cargo 

ships by nearly 50 percent relative to levels otherwise expected to be emitted in 

2014, and 75 percent relative to levels otherwise expected to be emitted in 2020. 

These emission reductions will occur in areas at and near ports where 

community impacts are of most concern. These emission reductions would play 

an essential role in assisting the South Coast Air Basin with meeting its 2014 fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) deadline in its State Implementation Plan as well as its 

future ozone deadlines. 

In addition, hotelling CO2 emissions are expected to be reduced by 122,000 to

242,000 metric tons in 2020, which will assist the State with meeting the 

Assembly Bill (AB) 32 targets for greenhouse gas reductions. 

The emission reductions from the proposed regulation would result in lower 

ambient PM levels and reduced exposure to diesel PM. Staff estimates that 

approximately 280 premature deaths statewide would be avoided by year 2020 

from implementation of the proposed regulation. The estimated cost benefit of 

the avoided premature deaths and other health benefits due to the emission 

reductions are estimated to range from $1.3 to $1.9 billion. 

The reduction in potential cancer risk was assessed based on the overall 

projected reduction in hotelling emissions from the proposed regulation. It was 

estimated that the population exposed to a risk of 10 in a million would be 

reduced by about 70 percent by 2020 due to these emission reductions. More 

importantly, all higher risk levels of greater than 100 in a million are eliminated 

due to implementation of the proposed regulation. 
ES-4 

Staff estimates the statewide total regulatory costs for affected businesses and 

port authorities to comply with the proposed regulation to be approximately 

$1.8 billion, in 2006 dollars. This includes costs to comply with the regulation, 

which are primarily those incurred by vessel operators when they shut down their 

auxiliary engines at dock, as well as costs that are not strictly required to comply 

with the regulation but are nonetheless anticipated by ARB (e.g., installation of 

electrical infrastructure or distributed generation by shoreside entities). 

Annually, the costs are expected to vary from $30 million to $137 million. The 

low end of the range represents a year when the only major capital expenditures 

are for retrofitting container ships due to repositioning, and the high end of the 

range represents a year when capital expenditures are being made for shoreside 

infrastructure and for retrofitting a considerable number of ships to meet the 2020 

milestone. The total statewide annual costs to private business include recovery 

of capital expenditures, both aboard the ships and at the ports, and operating 

costs, which are labor costs and net energy costs. The Proposition 1B Bond 

program (Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program) potentially could 

provide funding for shore power projects. ARB is currently holding workshops for 

determining minimum requirements of shore power projects and other Prop 1B 

Bond projects. 

The governmental agencies affected by the proposed regulation are the port 

authorities, which are branches of the local city governments. The ports affected 

by the proposed regulation are the Ports of Hueneme, Long Beach, 

Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, and San Francisco. Additionally, the cruise 

terminal at the Port of Long Beach is owned by the City of Long Beach. The 

costs to be expended by the port authorities to add shore-power equipment to 

their facilities ranges from $4 million to $86 million. 

The overall cost-effectiveness of the regulation based on the regulatory costs 

and projected emission reductions is estimated to be $690,000 per ton if the total 

annualized cost is attributed solely to the PM reduction. Staff estimates the 

overall cost-effectiveness of the proposed regulation, in terms of dollars per ton 

of NOx emission reduction, to be about $12,800 per ton. This would be the 

cost-effectiveness if the total cost were attributed solely to the NOx emission 

reductions. 

The cost-effectiveness for this regulation is consistent with those of other recent 

rulemakings, such as the Bus Fleet Rule, which was estimated to have a costeffectiveness of nearly $68,000 per ton of NOx reduced, based on attributing all 

of the costs toward NOx emissions reductions. Because the proposed regulation 

reduces significant amounts of both NOx and PM, staff also evaluated 

cost-effectiveness by attributing half the total annualized cost to the PM emission 

reductions and half to the NOx emission reductions. The resulting 

cost-effectiveness values using that method are $6,400 per ton of NOx reduced 

and $345,000 per ton of PM reduced. 
ES-5 

As noted, the proposal will reduce CO2 emissions by 122,000 to 242,000 metric 

tons in 2020. The proposed regulation achieves these reductions automatically 

as a co-benefit of the diesel PM and NOx emission reductions. Because the 

proposed regulation is primarily a diesel PM and NOx control measure, and it will 

not mandate any additional requirements in order to reduce CO2 emissions, there 

will be effectively zero costs involved in achieving these CO2 emission 

reductions. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness for reducing CO2 as a co-benefit of 

achieving the primary reductions in diesel PM and NOx emissions is essentially 

zero dollars per pound of CO2 reduced. 

1 

INTRODUCTION

This Initial Statement of Reasons (Staff Report) presents an evaluation of the 

need to reduce emission from ocean-going vessels while at-berth. The 

evaluation looks at the corresponding health effects from such emissions, a 

summary of the proposed regulation (two essentially identical regulations 

collectively referred to hereinafter in the singular), and the projected emissions 

reductions along with the associated reduction in health risk. The Staff Report 

presents estimated costs for regulation compliance, for both industry and local 

governments, along with the alternative proposals considered. A copy of the 

proposed regulation is provided in Appendix A. The Technical Support 

Document, an addendum to the Staff Report, provides more detailed analyses of 

these subjects and supporting documentation for the proposal. The Technical 

Support Document is provided under separate cover. 

Staff is proposing a regulation to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter 

(PM) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from diesel-fueled auxiliary engines used aboard 

ocean-going ships while docked at a California port. The proposal reduces 

emissions in a relatively straightforward way—by limiting the operation of 

auxiliary engines while the vessels are docked. 

Auxiliary engines are run to power lighting, ventilation, pumps, communication, 

and other onboard equipment while a ship is docked at a berth, or “hotelled.” 

The proposed regulation would require operators of vessels meeting specified 

criteria to turn off their auxiliary engines for most of their stay in port. We 

anticipate that such vessels would then receive their electrical power from shore, 

or would use an alternative, but equally effective, means of emissions reductions. 

This process of shutting off engines and connecting to power on shore is 

sometimes referred to as “shore power” or “cold-ironing.” The term “cold-ironing” 

is derived from the metal aboard the ships “going cold” when combustion 

equipment is shut down. 

The California Air Resources Board’s (ARB or Board) mission is to protect public 

health, welfare, and ecological resources through the effective and efficient 

reduction of air pollutants, while recognizing and considering the effects on the 

economy of the State. The ARB’s vision is that all individuals in California, 

especially children and the elderly, can live, work, and play in a healthful 

environment – free from harmful exposure to air pollution. To help achieve this, 

ARB has adopted numerous regulations to control emissions from many different 

sources, including diesel engines. Diesel engine exhaust is a significant health 

concern because it is a source of unhealthful air pollutants, including gaseous 

and particulate-phase toxic air contaminants (TAC), particulate matter (PM), 

oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons. 
2 

In 1998, the Board identified diesel PM as a TAC with no Board-specified 

threshold exposure level, pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) sections 

39650 through 39675. A needs assessment for diesel PM was conducted 

between 1998 and 2000 pursuant to HSC sections 39658, 39665, and 39666. 

This resulted in ARB staff developing and the Board approving 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 the proposed 

regulation. The ultimate goal of the Diesel RRP is to reduce, by 2020, 

California’s diesel PM emissions and associated cancer risks by 85 percent from 

the 2000 levels. The proposed regulation would reduce diesel PM emissions and 

the local health impacts from ships docked in California’s ports and would 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. Phase I of the GMAP was released in September 2005 and highlighted 

the air pollution impacts of goods movement and the urgent need to mitigate 

localized health risk in affected communities. The final GMAP was released in 

January 2007 and includes a framework that identifies the key contributors to 

goods movement-related emissions. 

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. The 

GMERP identifies several strategies for reducing emissions from ocean-going 

vessels. Specific to hotelling emissions, the GMERP establishes 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. The proposed 

regulation would represent a significant first step toward satisfying the GMERP 

goals by requiring specific vessel types to shut down their engines while docked. 

Shutting an engine down is a necessary condition for using shore power; the 

proposed regulation makes it possible for 50 percent of a fleet’s visits to a port to 

be electrified by 2014, which rises to 80 percent of visits by 2020. Furthermore, 

emission reductions would begin in 2010 for vessel owners or operators 

choosing an alternative emission control technology to reduce their hotelling 

emissions.
3 

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. The U.S. EPA requires 

the Air Basin to meet the PM2.5 standards by 2015, but the emission reductions 

must be in place by 2014. 

Significant reductions of NOx are crucial to meet the federal standards. For 

example, at this time, the strategy to achieve attainment of the PM2.5 standards in 

the South Coast Air Basin includes staff estimates that a 55 percent reduction in 

NOx emissions (secondary PM) from 2006 levels (i.e., a total reduction of 

hundreds of tons per day) and a 15 percent reduction in direct PM2.5 emissions 

from 2006 baseline levels will be necessary for attainment of the PM2.5 standards 

in the South Coast Air Basin. The proposed regulation would reduce hotelling 

NOx emissions from container ships, passenger ships, and refrigerated cargo 

ships by 50 percent relative to levels expected to be emitted in 2014 and nearly 

75 percent relative to levels expected to be emitted in 2020. Consequently, the 

emission reductions from the proposed regulation would 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. 

The federal Clean Air Act permits states to adopt more stringent air quality 

standards, and California has set standards for particulate matter and ozone that 

are more protective of public health than respective federal standards. The Bay 

Area, South Coast, and San Diego areas are nonattainment for the State 

standards for ozone and PM2.5. Health and Safety Code (HSC) section 40911 

requires the local air districts to submit plans to the Board for attaining the State 

ambient air quality standards, and HSC section 40924 requires triennial updates 

of those plans. The NOx and PM2.5 emission reductions from the proposed 

regulation would also assist the local air districts in achieving attainment of the 

State ambient air quality standards. 

In June 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-05, 

which established targets for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 

California: roll back GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 

2020, and finally to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In 2006, the 

Governor signed Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) (Stats. 2006, ch. 488), which 

established the 2020 GHG emission reduction goal in State law (HSC § 38500 et 
4 

seq.) and made the ARB responsible for monitoring and reducing GHG 

emissions. 

AB 32 requires the Board, by January 1, 2009, to design and adopt an overall 

plan to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The Board has until 

January 1, 2011, to adopt the necessary regulations to implement that plan. 

Implementation begins no later than January 1, 2012, and the emission reduction 

target must be fully achieved by January 1, 2020. AB 32 also required the Board 

to identify a list of discrete early action GHG reduction measures by June 30, 

2007. AB 32 defines discrete early action measures as regulations that are to be 

adopted by the Board and be enforceable by January 1, 2010. 

In April 2007, ARB staff released a report identifying 37 proposed early action 

items the Board could undertake to mitigate GHG emissions in California. Port 

electrification was identified as a GHG emission reduction measure in this report. 

In September 2007, ARB staff recommended reclassifying port electrification 

(now called Green Ports) from an early action measure to a discrete early action 

measure. Staff’s recommended reclassifications will be considered by the Board 

at its October 2007 hearing. 

The proposed regulation, while primarily aimed at reducing diesel PM and NOx 

emissions, will also reduce CO2 emissions as a co-benefit of requiring cleaner 

electrical generation for ocean-going vessels that “plug in” while docked. These 

CO2 emission reductions will help California meet its 2020 greenhouse gas 

emission reduction goal. 

2. DETERMINATION OF AFFECTED OCEAN-GOING VESSEL 

CATEGORIES 

Staff is proposing to initially regulate hotelling emissions from three out of the six 

categories of ocean-going vessels that visit California ports and to address the 

hotelling emissions from the other three categories at a later date. This 

bifurcation was based on information presented in an earlier ARB report, 

Evaluation of Cold-ironing Ocean-Going Vessels at California Ports (Evaluation 

Report), which was released as a draft in March 2006. The purpose of the 

Evaluation Report was to present an analysis of the feasibility and 

cost-effectiveness of requiring ships to shut off auxiliary engines while in port and 

connect to power provided at the berth as a potential emission control measure. 

While not finalized, the results of the Evaluation Report nevertheless formed a 

good basis for ARB’s further development of the proposed regulation. 

In the Evaluation Report, ARB staff calculated, for screening purposes, the costeffectiveness of shore power as an emission reduction strategy using three major 

sets of variables: ship categories, ship power loads, and pollutants reduced. 

ARB staff divided the ocean-going vessels visiting California ports in 2004 into 
5 

six categories: container ships, passenger ships, refrigerated cargo ships, 

tankers, bulk/cargo ships, and vehicle carriers. Cost-effectiveness values were 

calculated for each ship category. The cost-effectiveness values were based on 

the total cost of implementing cold-ironing— shore-side and ship-side— and the 

emission reductions expected from cold-ironing the ships. 

For the screening analysis, staff analyzed three scenarios; 1) all ships being 

cold-ironed at all California ports; 2) cold-ironing ships that made at least three 

visits per year to a California port; 3) and cold-ironing ships that made at least six 

visits per year to a California port. ARB staff also calculated the costeffectiveness values using three approaches for air pollutants reduced: (1) “all 

pollutants” emissions reductions (NOx, PM, volatile organic compounds [VOC], 

and oxides of sulfur [SOx]); (2) NOx emissions reductions only; and (3) PM 

emissions reductions only. 

Based on the screening analysis noted above, the Evaluation Report concluded 

that the most attractive vessel candidates for cold-ironing are container ships, 

refrigerated cargo (reefer) ships, and passenger ships, and the most likely 

locations for cold-ironing in California are the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, 

Oakland, San Diego, San Francisco, and Hueneme. The most attractive ship 

candidates were found to be those ships that make frequent visits to a California 

port, spend a sufficient number of hours at berth, and have an ample power 

demand while hotelled. These findings formed the foundation on which the 

proposed rulemaking was based. 

Of the three remaining types of vessels that visit California, the Evaluation Report 

showed that it was not as cost-effective at this time to cold-iron bulk and general 

cargo ships and vehicle carriers, relative to container ships, passenger ships and 

reefers, because the former categories generally have a low number of repeat 

visits to any single port and lower power loads. Further, crude-oil tankers were 

found to have higher average cost-effectiveness values because there are only a 

handful of diesel-electric tankers that visit California, and only two are expected 

to visit frequently. Indeed, most crude-oil tankers use steam turbines to drive 

their cargo pumps. These cargo pumps represent the majority of the power 

needed by tankers when they are berthed. The rest of the ship’s power needs 

are modest. Finally, product tankers make few visits to California ports, and their 

berthing times are short, making them a much less attractive candidate for coldironing. 

The proposed regulation specifically addresses hotelling emission reduction 

requirements for categories of ships that were found at this time to be attractive 

candidates for shore power in the Evaluation Report—container ships, passenger 

ships, reefer ships— and the California ports where these ships frequently visit. 

As noted earlier, staff is proposing to develop separate requirements for other 

ship categories that were not considered to be good candidates at this time for 
6 

shore power -- bulk ships, tankers, and vehicle carriers—at a later date. Staff 

anticipates presenting proposed hotelling emission reduction requirements for 

these other ships to the Board in late 2008. We expect that at-berth emissions 

from tugboats operating at California ports will also be addressed at that time. 

3. EMISSIONS INVENTORY 

Hotelling emissions are associated with the use of diesel-fueled auxiliary engines 

on ocean-going ships to power the vessels’ electrical systems while the ships are 

docked. These emissions are a function of how often the ship visits a California 

port, how long the ship is at berth, the emissions rate of the engines, and the 

typical operating load of the auxiliary engines while the ship is at berth. 

ARB staff estimates that in 2006, the statewide hotelling emissions from 

approximately 2000 ocean-going vessels was 1.8 tons per day (TPD) of diesel 

PM emissions, and 21.1 TPD of NOx emissions. Table I presents hotelling 

emissions for the six major categories of ocean-going vessels that visit California 

ports—container ships, passenger ships, reefer ships, vessel carriers, bulk ships, 

and tankers. As can be seen in this table, hotelling emissions from the three 

affected ship categories, container ships, passenger ships, and reefer ships, 

represent over 80 percent of total statewide hotelling emissions. 

Table 1: Estimated 2006 Hotelling Emissions by Ship Category 

 

2006 Emissions, Tons/Day 

Ship Category 

NOx PM 

Container 13.8 1.1 

Passenger 2.8 0.2 

Reefers 0.9 0.1 

Tanker 2.0 0.2 

Bulk/General 1.0 0.1 

Vehicle Carriers 0.6 0.1 

Totals 21.1 1.8 

The proposed regulation would affect ships visiting the Ports of Los Angeles and 

Long Beach (which, for the proposed regulation, would be considered one port), 

Oakland, San Diego, Hueneme, and San Francisco. To provide a perspective of 
7 

the shipping activities at these ports compared to all other ports in California, 

staff presents total hotelling emission by California port in Table 2. 

 Table 2: Estimated 2006 Hotelling Emissions by Port (Tons per Day)

 

Port NOx PM 

Los Angeles/Long Beach 14.3 1.2 

Oakland 2.6 0.2 

San Diego 1.1 0.1 

Hueneme 0.7 0.1 

San Francisco 0.5 0.1 

Other Ports 1.2 0.2 

Total 21.1 1.8 

As can be seen in this table, most of the shipping activities and hotelling 

emissions occur at the largest ports in California: Los Angeles and Long Beach 

followed by Oakland. The six ports affected by the proposed regulation account 

for over 90 percent of total hotelling emissions at California ports. 

Staff developed growth factors for each ship category to project future hotelling 

emissions. In general, the growth in vessel hotelling emissions is directly 

proportional to the growth in vessel visits, ship size, berthing times, and, in the 

case of container ships, the number of refrigerated containers aboard. 

Hotelling emissions from ocean-going ships are predicted to increase from 2006. 

Container ship and passenger ship emissions are expected to double by 2020. 

Reefer ship emissions are expected to decline at the Ports of Long Beach and 

Los Angeles, slightly increase at the Port of Hueneme, and triple at the Port of 

San Diego by 2020. 

Table 3 presents projected 2014 and 2020 emission estimates for container 

ships, passenger ships, and reefer ships. In December 2005, the Board adopted 

an auxiliary engine fuel regulation that would limit the sulfur content of fuel used 

with auxiliary engines starting in 2007. At the time this staff report was 

published, the regulation had been challenged in federal district court and is 

undergoing appeal at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The future emission 

projections were based on the assumption that the auxiliary engine regulation 

would ultimately be upheld and the auxiliary engines would be operating on 

low-sulfur fuel. 
8 

Table 3: Projected 2014 and 2020 Emissions from Container Ships, 

Passenger Ships, and Reefer Ships 

Ship 

Category 

Projected 2014 

Emissions 

Tons per Day 

Projected 2020 

Emissions 

Tons per Day 

NOx PM NOx PM 

Container 21.4 0.38 30.8 0.55 

Passenger 3.6 0.07 5.2 0.09 

Reefer 1.0 0.02 1.3 0.02 

Totals 26 0.47 37.3 0.67 

4. HEALTH RISK 

A. Cancer Risk 

To provide a perspective on the potential cancer risk from exposure to hotelling 

emissions, staff used an existing analysis from 2004 of diesel PM emissions from 

port related activities (including hotelling emissions) at the Port of Los Angles and 

the Port of Long Beach. Staff then adjusted the results of that study to reflect 

2006 estimated hotelling emissions. Based on the adjusted results, we estimate 

that over two million people live in the area around the ports that has predicted 

cancer risks of greater than 10 in a million due to hotelling emissions from oceangoing vessels. 

Estimates of potential cancer risks from hotelling emissions at these two ports 

would represent the upper range of cancer risks, given the magnitude of hotelling 

emissions in the San Pedro Bay area and the proximity of the emissions to highly 

urbanized areas. Semi-quantitative estimates of the relative impact of hotelling 

emissions for other areas can be made based on a comparison of the relative 

magnitude of emissions and the proximity of the emissions to urbanized areas. 

For example, one would expect that the potential cancer risk estimate for the Port 

of Oakland would be about 20 percent of the estimate for the Ports of 

Los Angeles and Long Beach, while the cancer risk estimates for the Port of San 

Diego would be about 90 percent lower. 

ARB staff is currently conducting a diesel PM exposure assessment study for the 

West Oakland community which includes the Port of Oakland that will be similar 

in scope as the study completed for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. 

Staff expects a draft report on the West Oakland study to be released in late 

November. 
9 

B. Non-Cancer Risk 

Staff estimates that current exposure to direct and secondary diesel PM 

emissions from at-berth ocean-going vessel auxiliary engines can be associated 

with about 61 premature deaths per year. Due to the location of the ocean-going 

vessels’ operations, their emissions were assumed to affect the population only 

within the county in which the vessels are docked. 

Using the 2006 statewide estimate of directly emitted diesel PM hotelling 

emissions and the relationship of diesel PM to PM-mortality derived from Pope et 

al. (2002), we estimate approximately 39 premature deaths (11 to 68, 95 percent 

confidence interval (95% CI)) per year statewide due to uncontrolled, directly 

emitted diesel PM from at-berth ocean-going vessel auxiliary engines. 

Staff actually developed basin-specific factors for the health impacts assessment 

of emissions from the operation of auxiliary engines on at-berth ocean-going 

vessels. These basin-specific factors were developed using basin-specific diesel 

PM concentrations and emissions for the year 2000. The basin-specific factors 

were applied to the county where each port is located to estimate health impacts. 

Using these basin-specific factors and after adjusting for population changes 

between 2000 and 2006, staff estimates that 580 tons of emissions from the 

operation of auxiliary engines on at-berth ocean-going vessels for the year 2006 

are associated with approximately 39 annual deaths (11 – 68, 95% CI). 

Estimates of other health impacts, such as hospitalizations and asthma 

symptoms, were calculated using basin-specific factors developed from other 

health studies. Details on the methodology used to calculate these estimates 

can be found in Appendix A of the Emission Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods 

Movement in California (ARB, 2006). 

In addition to directly emitted PM, diesel exhaust contains NOx, which is a 

precursor to nitrates, a secondary diesel-related PM formed in the atmosphere. 

Lloyd and Cackette (2001) estimated that secondary diesel PM2.5 exposures from 

NOx emissions can lead to additional health impacts beyond those associated 

with directly emitted diesel PM2.5 (Lloyd and Cackette, 2001). To quantify such 

impacts, staff developed population-weighted nitrate concentrations for each air 

basin, as described in the Technical Support Document, Chapter V. 

Using the 2006 statewide estimate of NOx hotelling emissions and the 

relationship of NOx/nitrate to PM-mortality, we estimated approximately 22 

(6 – 36, 95% CI) premature deaths per year statewide due to uncontrolled, 

secondary diesel PM from at-berth ocean-going vessel diesel auxiliary engines. 
10 

In addition to PM-mortality, we estimate that the 2006 estimated emissions 

(directly emitted and secondary sources) from at-berth ocean-going vessel 

auxiliary engines will result in the following non-cancer health impacts: 

• 13 hospital admissions due to respiratory causes (8 – 18, 95% CI) 

• 24 hospital admissions due to cardiovascular causes (15 – 37, 95% CI) 

• 1,800 cases of asthma-related and other lower respiratory symptoms 

(700 – 2,800, 95% CI) 

• 150 cases of acute bronchitis (0 – 320, 95% CI) 

• 11,000 work loss days (9,000 – 12,000, 95% CI) 

• 61,000 minor restricted activity days (50,000 – 72,000, 95% CI) 

5. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION 

Staff is proposing that the Board approve adoption of a regulation, pursuant to its 

authority under HSC sections 38500 et seq., 43013 and 43018, which would 

apply to the emissions from diesel auxiliary engines on oceangoing vessels 

docked at California ports. As a companion to that regulation, staff is proposing 

that the Board also approve adoption of identical provisions as an airborne toxic 

control measure (ATCM), pursuant to its authority under HSC section 39666, 

which would complement the regulation and provide maximum notice to the 

regulated community of the regulatory requirements on ocean-going vessels. 

The regulation and ATCM are hereinafter collectively referred to in the singular. 

The following sections provide more details about the proposed regulation. 

Applicability 

The regulation would apply to any person who owns, operates, charters, rents, or 

leases any container ship, passenger ship, or refrigerated cargo ship (also known 

as “reefer”) that visits a California port. The regulation would also apply to any 

person who owns or operates a port or terminal located at a port where 

container, passenger, or refrigerated cargo (reefer) ships visit. These ports 

include Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, San Diego, San Francisco, and 

Hueneme. For purposes of complying with the proposed regulation, the ports of 

Los Angeles and Long Beach are considered as one port. 

The regulation applies to both U.S.-flagged vessels and foreign-flagged vessels. 

Foreign-flagged vessels are vessels registered under the flag of a country other 

than the United States. 

Exemptions 

The proposed regulations contain general and specific exemptions. Under the 

general exemptions, vessels in “innocent passage;” vessels owned or operated 

by local, state, federal or foreign governments in government non-commercial 
11 

service; steamships; and auxiliary engines using natural gas are exempt from the 

regulations in their entirety. A steamship is an ocean-going vessel whose 

primary propulsion and electrical power are provided by steam boilers. In 

addition, there are particular exemptions from specified portions of the 

regulations for emergency events and delays caused by federal agency 

inspections.

Options to Reduce Emissions 

Limited Engine Use Option 

The proposed regulation allows for two options to reduce hotelling emissions: 

(1) ship operators can either shut down their auxiliary engines while in port 

(except for three or five permissible hours of operation per visit), or (2) they can 

reduce the at-berth emissions from those auxiliary engines by specified 

percentages while docked. 

The “limited engine use” option in the proposed regulation requires that the 

operators of container ships, passenger ships, and reefers that visit California 

ports shut down their auxiliary engines for most of their stay while hotelling. 

Specifically, these auxiliary engines must be shut down for 50 percent of a fleet’s 

total visits to a California port in 2014 and 80 percent of the fleet’s total visits to a 

port in 2020. While auxiliary engines are shut down, the ship’s onboard electrical 

needs must be satisfied by some other source of power. The source of electrical 

power used instead of the auxiliary engines must be provided either by the grid 

or by another power source that meets specified emission standards. 

Fleets that do not make a minimum number of annual visits to a California port 

are exempt from the auxiliary engine limitations for that port. The specified 

threshold for applying the engine shutdown requirement is less than 25 total 

annual visits by a container vessel fleet or reefer vessel fleet to a port. For 

passenger vessel fleets, this threshold is less than five visits. However, these 

minimum thresholds notwithstanding, the regulation requires a vessel to use 

shore power if it is equipped to do so, and it visits a berth equipped to provide 

compatible shore power. 

As noted, to provide for sufficient time to connect and disconnect electrical lines 

for shore power, the proposed regulation allows the auxiliary engines to operate 

for up to three hours during a visit, or five hours during a visit for vessels that lose 

power during the process of switching power from the vessel’s auxiliary engines 

to shore power. This time period may be extended due to circumstances beyond 

the control of the vessel operators, such as emergency events or delays resulting 

from obligations imposed by federal agencies (for example, the U.S. Coast 

Guard or some other branch of the Department of Homeland Security). 
12 

Emission Reduction Option 

An alternative to the “limited engine use” approach is the “emissions reduction 

option.” Operators choosing this option are required to reduce their auxiliary 

engine emissions at a port by specific percentages and by specific dates. The 

compliance dates vary based on the types of emission reduction techniques 

applied to the fleets. 

The emission reduction techniques that could be applied to a fleet include: 

1) using selected vessels for grid-supplied power based on potential auxiliary 

engine emission reductions rather than fleet visit percentages; 2) using 

distributed generation equipment to provide power to a vessel; 3) using 

alternative emission controls onboard a vessel or located adjacent to the vessel; 

and 4) using a combination of these techniques. 

For option 1, the emission reduction targets are aligned with the limited engine 

use approach: the NOx and PM emissions from the fleet’s auxiliary engines at a 

port must be reduced by 50 percent from the baseline fleet emissions by 2014 

and by 80 percent by 2020. For options 2 and 3, in which alternative control 

technologies are implemented, the NOx and PM emissions from the fleet’s 

auxiliary engines at a port must be reduced by 20 percent from the baseline fleet 

emissions by 2010, 40 percent by 2012, 60 percent by 2014, and 80 percent by 

2016. For option 4, in which a combination of approaches is implemented, NOx 

and PM emissions must be reduced by 20 percent from the baseline fleet 

emissions by 2012, 50 percent by 2014, and 80 percent by 2020. 

Staff is proposing earlier compliance dates (2010 and 2012) for vessel operators 

choosing alternative emission controls to reduce their fleet’s hotelling emissions 

rather than using grid supplied shore power, because of the significant lead time 

required to design and install a grid-based shore power application, which can be 

up to several years. If alternative controls or alternative shore power are 

available much earlier than 2014 and a vessel operator chooses the emission 

reductions option, then staff expects to begin achieving emission reductions from 

these options soon after the regulation is effective in late 2008. 

The proposal provides default values for making the emission reduction 

calculation, including default values for emission factors and power requirements, 

in lieu of more specific values. In addition, the proposal provides procedures for 

determining control factors and applicable emission testing procedures. 

Sources of electrical power, other than the grid, that are used to comply with the 

emission reduction option would be required to satisfy additional requirements. 

Before January 1, 2014, distributed generation equipment must satisfy the 

emission standards applicable to a newly manufactured spark-ignited off-road 

engine. As of January 1, 2014, all distributed generation would be subject to a 
13 

more stringent emission standard that is equivalent to a spark-ignited engine 

using Best Available Control Technology (BACT). Finally, the source of electrical 

power must emit no more CO2 (a greenhouse gas) emissions than a combinedcycle gas turbine—the emissions level that the California Public Utilities 

Commission recommended for unspecified sources of power. 

Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements 

The proposed regulation has reporting and recordkeeping requirements affecting 

the vessel owners and operators, terminals, and ports. 

The reporting and recordkeeping requirements for vessel owners or operators 

depend upon the compliance option selected by the vessel owner or operator 

and terminal. The proposed regulation requires a vessel fleet plan to be 

submitted to the Executive Officer of the ARB in the years prior to the fleet’s 

regulatory compliance dates. 

In addition to the vessel fleet plans, the proposal requires an annual statement of 

compliance to be submitted to the Executive Officer of the ARB certifying 

compliance with the regulatory requirements for the previous calendar year. As 

with the vessel fleet plans, the dates for the initial submittals depend upon the 

compliance option selected by the vessel owner or operator. 

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements are simpler for the limited engine 

use option because the vessel owner or operator choosing that option must track 

only those vessels that will comply with the 2014 and 2020 shore power 

requirements. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the emission 

reduction option are more significant because the vessel owner or operator 

choosing that option must track the emissions of each vessel in the fleet. 

A terminal that receives more than 50 vessel visits in 2008 is required to submit a 

plan to the Executive Officer of the Air Resources Board by July 1, 2009. This 

plan is required to identify how the terminal will be upgraded to allow vessels to 

satisfy either the limited engine use option or the emissions reduction option. 

The terminal is also required to submit plan updates at a frequency that depends 

on the control strategy selected by the vessel fleet owner or operator and the 

terminal. 

The port is required to submit wharfinger data annually to ARB’s Executive 

Officer. The port’s written submittal must document when each vessel visits the 

port, the berth that the vessel visited, and the dates and times that the vessel 

was initially tied to the berth and subsequently released from the berth. In 

addition, the terminal operator is required to keep records of electricity usage for 

shore power and equipment breakdowns that affect a vessel’s ability to comply 

with the limited engine use option or the emission reduction option. 
14 

Violations and Severability 

The proposal includes a violations provision that provides, among other things, 

that any violation of any part of the regulation would constitute a single, separate 

violation for each hour that the violation occurs. The exception to this would be 

for violations of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements; a violation of 

those provisions would constitute a single, separate violation for each day that 

the violation occurs. 

The proposed regulation states that if any part of the regulation is held to be 

invalid, the remainder of the regulation shall continue to be effective. 

6. EMISSION REDUCTIONS 

As mentioned earlier, staff assumes that the challenge to the auxiliary engine fuel 

regulation will ultimately be upheld and that the fuel regulation will provide 

significant emission reductions from auxiliary engines on ocean-going vessels. 

The proposed at-berth ocean-going vessel regulation is expected to provide 

additional significant emission reduction benefits. Staff projects that the 

proposed regulation would reduce hotelling diesel PM and NOx emissions from 

container ships, passenger ships, and refrigerated cargo ships by 50 percent and 

75 percent relative to levels expected to be emitted in 2014 and 2020, 

respectively. These emission reductions will occur in areas at and near ports 

where environmental justice concerns are especially prevalent. 

In addition, hotelling CO2 emissions are expected to be reduced by 122,000 to

242,000 metric tons in 2020. These estimated CO2 reductions take into account 

the CO2 emissions associated with the generation of electricity for shore power. 

The CO2 benefits from this regulation—which will assist the State with meeting 

the AB 32 targets for greenhouse gas reductions—are discussed in more detail 

later in this staff report. 

 

Figures 1 and 2 show the projected diesel PM and NOx hotelling emissions for 

container ships, passenger ships, and reefer ships, with and without 

implementation of the proposed regulation. 
15 

Figure 1: Projected Diesel PM Emissions with and without the Proposed 

Regulation

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

2006 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Year

Emissions (Tons/Day)

Uncontrolled PM

Controlled PM

Figure 2: Projected NOx Emissions with and without the Proposed 

Regulation

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

2006 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Year

Emissions (Tons/Day)

Uncontrolled NOx

Controlled NOx

As summarized in Table 4 below, staff estimates that approximately 1,100 tons of 

diesel PM and 61,700 tons of NOx will be removed from California's air between 

2006 and 2020 due to the implementation of the proposed regulation. 
16 

 Table 4: Emission Benefits from Implementation of the Proposed 

Regulation 

PM NOx

Total Emission Reductions 

 2006 to 2020 (Tons) 1,100* 61,700* 

Annual Average Reductions 

(Tons per Year) 85 4,700 

 *For the container-ship category, the regulatory period is 2009 – 2030 to 

account for ship turnover. Total emissions reductions to 2030 are 

2,600 tons of diesel PM and 140,000 tons of NOx. 

7. RISK REDUCTION 

A. Cancer Risk 

The emission reductions obtained from the proposed regulation would result in 

lower ambient PM levels and reductions in exposure to diesel PM. These 

reductions would result in a corresponding reduction in potential cancer risk. 

Because ARB’s auxiliary engine fuel regulation would significantly reduce diesel 

PM hotelling emissions from auxiliary engines1, the potential cancer risks from 

exposures to the projected 2014 and 2020 emissions levels after implementation 

of the proposed regulation were estimated and compared to those of 2014 and 

2020 emission levels from implementation of the auxiliary engine fuel regulation

to determine how the potential risks will change. 

As shown in Figures 3 through 6, we expect a significant decline in the number of 

people exposed to elevated risk levels from hotelling emissions and the acres 

impacted as the auxiliary engine fuel regulation is implemented. In addition to this 

reduction, the proposed At-Berth Ocean-Going Vessel regulation will reduce the 

number of residential acres and population exposed to diesel PM concentrations 

greater than 10 per million by an additional 50 percent by 2014 and 70 percent 

by 2020. More importantly, all higher risk levels of greater than 100 in a million 

are eliminated due to implementation of the proposed regulation. 

 

1

 See title 13 CCR § 2299.1 and title 17 CCR § 93118. At the time this ISOR was published, 

those regulations had been challenged in federal district court and undergoing appeal at the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Pacific Merchant Shipping Ass'n v. Cackette, (E.D.Cal. Oct 05, 2007) 

2007 WL 2914961 (No. Civ. S-06-2791-WBS-KJM). The analysis presented in this portion of the 

ISOR assumes those auxiliary engine regulations will ultimately be upheld on appeal. 
17 

Figure 3: Projected Residential Areas Impacted by Hotelling Emissions 

at POLA/POLB by 2014 

Figure 4: Projected Numbers of Population Affected by Hotelling 

Emissions at POLA/POLB by 2014 

 

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

Number of Persons

2014 without Control

2014 with Auxi Reg

2014 with Auxi + Cold

2014 without Control 1,977,764 631,799 206,577 17,917

2014 with Auxi Reg 1,339,600 20,800 0 0

2014 with Auxi + Cold 736,000 0 0 0

Risk > 10 Risk > 100 Risk > 200 Risk > 500

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

Residential Area (Acres)

2014 without Control

2014 with Auxi Reg

2014 with Auxi + Cold

2014 without Control 163,435 48,146 11,653 761

2014 with Auxi Reg 113,016 939 0 0

2014 with Auxi + Cold 57,269 0 0 0

Risk > 10 Risk > 100 Risk > 200 Risk > 500
18 

Figure 5: Projected Residential Areas Impacted by Hotelling Emissions 

at POLA/POLB by 2020 

 

Figure 6: Projected Numbers of Population Affected by Hotelling 

Emissions at POLA/POLB by 2020 

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

Number of Persons

2020 without Control

2020 with Auxi Reg

2020 with Auxi + Cold

2020 without Control 1,977,765 1,009,250 381,870 57,600

2020 with Auxi Reg 1,644,856 65,856 6,180 0

2020 with Auxi + Cold 485,000 0 0 0

Risk > 10 Risk > 100 Risk > 200 Risk > 500

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

Residential Area (Acres)

2020 without Control

2020 with Auxi Reg

2020 with Auxi + Cold

2020 without Control 163,435 80,457 23,979 2,540

2020 with Auxi Reg 134,820 2,955 119 0

2020 with Auxi + Cold 33,517 0 0 0

Risk > 10 Risk > 100 Risk > 200 Risk > 500
19 

B. Non-Cancer Risk 

The emission reductions obtained from this regulation will result in lower ambient 

PM levels and reduced exposure to diesel PM. Staff estimates that 

approximately 280 premature deaths (78 – 480, 95 percent confidence interval 

(95% CI)) statewide will be avoided by the year 2020 from the implementation of 

the proposed regulation. Estimates of other health effects avoided statewide 

include: 

• 60 hospital admissions due to respiratory causes (38 – 83, 95% CI) 

• 110 hospital admissions due to cardiovascular causes (70 – 170, 95% CI) 

• 8,200 cases of asthma-related and other lower respiratory symptoms 

(3,200 – 13,000, 95% CI) 

• 680 cases of acute bronchitis (0 – 1,400, 95% CI) 

• 49,000 work loss days (42,000 – 57,000, 95% CI) 

• 280,000 minor restricted activity days (230,000 – 330,000, 95% CI) 

8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

No significant adverse environmental impacts are expected to occur from 

adoption of, and compliance with, the proposed requirements for ocean-going 

vessels at berth. Implementation of the proposal would reduce directly emitted 

and secondarily formed PM levels, provide both near source and regional risk 

reduction, and contribute to the overall effort of reducing PM mortality, hospital 

admissions, and lost work days. 

9. IMPACT ON GLOBAL WARMING 

As noted, the Board will consider, at its October 2007 meeting, reclassifying 

shore power (now referred to as Green Ports) from an early action measure to a 

discrete early action measure pursuant to AB 32. The proposed regulation for 

ocean-going vessels at-berth would result in significant CO2 reductions and its 

adoption would fulfill the Board’s commitment to pursue shore power as an early 

action measure, assuming the Board accepts the staff’s recommendation in 

October to include the measure as an early action item. 

The proposal’s primary emission reduction strategy is to allow a ship to utilize 

grid-based shore power instead of onboard electrical generation from dieselfueled auxiliary engines. The CO2 emissions from California’s utility grid are 

much cleaner than diesel-fueled auxiliary engines on ships. In addition, new 

state mandates (SB 13682 and AB 32) will result in CO2 emissions from the grid 

declining between now and 2020. Consequently, CO2 emissions from 

 

2

 SB 1368 (Stats. 2006, ch. 598). 
20 

ocean-going vessels at-berth are expected to be reduced by 122,000 to 

242,000 metric tons in 2020. 

The proposed regulation will allow the use of alternative technologies to achieve 

required emission reductions. These alternatives may include ship-side 

technologies, such as post-combustion devices, alternative fuels, or cleaner 

engines, or shore-side technologies, including distributed generation or emissioncapture-and-treatment devices (so-called “bonnet” systems). These 

technologies—although attractive for early deployment for NOx and diesel PM 

reductions—will most likely be less effective in reducing GHG emissions when 

compared to grid-based shore power, but they are permitted as specified in the 

proposal. 

For sources of electricity other than the grid for providing shore power to the 

ships, the proposed regulation limits the CO2 emissions to 500 grams per 

kilowatt-hour (1,100 lbs CO2/MW-hr). This emission standard will prohibit the use 

of electrical generation technologies that emit much higher levels of CO2, such as 

diesel engines and less efficient spark-ignited engines. 

The post-combustion technologies—selective catalytic reduction (SCR), diesel 

particulate filters (DPFs), and diesel oxidation catalysts (DOCs)—tend to 

increase CO2 emissions due to increased fuel use. However, the DPFs and 

DOCs remove black carbon, a component of diesel PM and a likely contributor to 

global warming. 

For the emission-capture-and-treatment devices (e.g., Advanced Cleanup 

Technologies’ “bonnet” system), there would be a much larger CO2 penalty 

because there is an auxiliary burner on the treatment unit for reheating the stack 

gases so that the SCR operates effectively. In addition, a vessel would use a 

bonnet system to allow the continued operation of the onboard auxiliary engines. 

Thus, the auxiliary engines aboard the ships would still be operating, along with 

the treatment unit’s burner. On the other hand, this alternative technology would 

capture and treat the NOx and PM emissions from the boilers on the ships—

something that shore power would not do—so the increase in CO2 emissions 

would need to be balanced against the additional NOx and PM emission 

reductions. 

Most of these technologies are at the proof-of-concept stage, and ARB staff 

cannot at this time predict with certainty the extent of their deployment in the 

future. Therefore, we are unable to project the impact of such alternatives on 

overall CO2 emission reductions under this program. 

10. ECONOMIC IMPACTS 

Staff assumes that the most widely deployed technique for meeting the 

requirements of the proposed regulation will be grid-based shore power. This 

approach satisfies the “limited engine use” option and will probably be the 
21 

technique of choice for the emissions reduction option. Consequently, staff’s 

economic analysis addressed the use of grid-based shore power only. 

Staff estimates the total statewide costs for affected businesses and port 

authorities to comply with the proposed regulation to be approximately 

$1.8 billion, in 2006 dollars. This includes costs directly resulting from 

compliance with the proposed regulation (e.g., shutting down engines, 

recordkeeping, reporting), as well as those costs that are not directly required by 

the regulation, but are expected, as terminals and ports prepare to accommodate 

vessels that shut down their engines at berth (e.g., installation of shore power 

capabilities). Annually, the costs are expected to vary from $30 million to 

$137 million. The low end of the range represents a year when the only major 

capital expenditures are for retrofitting container ships due to repositioning, and 

the high end of the range represents a year when capital expenditures are being 

made for shoreside infrastructure and for retrofitting a considerable number of 

ships to meet the 2020 milestone. The total statewide annual costs to private 

business include recovery of capital expenditures, both aboard the ships and at 

the ports, and operating costs, which are labor costs and net energy costs. 

Since 25 of the 35 vessel fleets affected by the proposed regulation are 

container-ship fleets, for the purposes of this proposed regulation, the typical ship 

company refers to a company operating container ships. The total costs to a 

typical ship company complying with the proposed regulation, including capital 

and ongoing costs are estimated to be about $34 million. This cost would be 

distributed over the years 2009 to 2020 for passenger ship companies and reefer 

ship companies and to 2030 for container ship companies. About 40 percent of 

the cost is associated with modifying additional ships to replace ships that have 

been re-deployed away from California ports. Annual costs would vary between 

$600,000 and $3 million per year, with the average cost of $1.5 million per year 

over this time period. The low end of the range represents a year when no major 

capital expenditures are made, and the high end of the range represents a year 

where capital expenditures are made for both new ships as well as replacement 

ships that are rerouted. 

For the other passenger ship and reefer categories, the total costs for a typical 

ship company to comply with the proposed regulation, including capital and 

ongoing costs, are estimated to be about $3.2 million. This cost would be 

distributed over a 12-year period, from 2009 to 2020. Annual costs would vary 

between $150,000 and $500,000 per year, with the average cost of $260,000 per 

year over this time period. 

Similarly, the total costs to a typical terminal operator complying with the 

proposed regulation, including capital and ongoing costs, are estimated to be 

about $11 million. About 20 percent of the cost is attributed to labor costs and 

the other 80 percent for capital costs. This cost would be distributed over a 
22 

12-year period, from 2009 to 2020. Annual costs would vary between $500,000 

and $1.1 million per year, with the average cost of $1 million per year over this 

time period. The low end of the range represents a year where no major capital 

expenditures are made, and the high end of the range represents a year where 

capital expenditures are made for shore-side improvements. With 31 terminals 

and 35 vessel fleets affected by the proposed regulation, the cost to a typical 

business would be $26 million. 

Vessel owners or operators, terminals, and ports would have additional recurring 

costs associated with recordkeeping and reporting. Reporting requirements 

begin July 1, 2009, and recordkeeping requirements begin January 1, 2010. For 

the vessel owner or operator, the costs associated with reporting and 

recordkeeping will vary between $600 and $12,000 annually. The higher end of 

this range applies when the ship company chooses to comply with the emission 

reduction option of the proposed regulation, and the lower end of the range 

represents the costs for ship companies that comply with the limited engine use 

requirement. For the terminal operators and ports, the costs associated with 

reporting and recordkeeping are about $800 annually. 

Staff does not anticipate any small businesses being affected by the proposed 

regulation due to the large capital and operating costs associated with oceangoing vessel operations. 

The proposed regulation achieves these reductions automatically as a co-benefit 

of the diesel PM and NOx emission reductions. Because the proposed 

regulation is primarily a diesel PM and NOx control measure, and it will not 

mandate any additional requirements in order to reduce CO2 emissions, there will 

be effectively zero costs involved in achieving these CO2 emission reductions. 

Therefore, the cost-effectiveness for reducing CO2 as a co-benefit of achieving 

the primary reductions in diesel PM and NOx emissions is essentially zero dollars 

per pound of CO2 reduced. 

11. COST TO LOCAL AGENCIES 

The governmental agencies affected by the proposed regulation are the port 

authorities, which are branches of the local city governments. The ports affected 

by the proposed regulation are the Ports of Hueneme, Long Beach, 

Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, and San Francisco. Additionally, the cruise 

terminal at the Port of Long Beach is owned by the City of Long Beach 

The costs to be expended by the port authorities to add shore-power equipment 

to their facilities ranges from $4 million to $86 million. Staff does not expect ports 

to have a fiscal impact—defined as the costs incurred to the local agencies in the 

three fiscal years starting with the 2007/2008 fiscal year—until the second year. 

At this time, staff anticipates that the port authorities would begin to make 
23 

payments during fiscal years 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 for the necessary 

shore-power equipment to satisfy the 2014 milestone. The estimated fiscal costs 

for the ports range from $600,000 to $7.4 million for the fiscal years 2007/2008 

and 2009/2010. 

Staff assumes that the landlord ports will work with their tenants, the terminal 

lessees, to provide the shoreside infrastructure necessary to meet the 

requirements of the proposed regulation. Furthermore, staff assumes that the 

landlord ports will eventually recover their capital costs through modifications to 

terminal leases, while the non-landlord ports will recover their capital costs 

through fees collected from the carriers. 

12. COST-EFFECTIVENESS 

Cost-effectiveness is expressed in terms of regulatory compliance costs (dollars) 

per unit of air pollutant reduced (ton). Except for container ships, the costeffectiveness for the proposed regulation was determined by dividing the total 

cost of the proposed regulation by the total tons of air pollutants reduced from 

2009 to 2020. For container ships, the emission reductions out to 2030 were 

included in the calculation to account for that category’s ship turnover rate. 

Staff estimates the overall cost-effectiveness of the proposed regulation, in terms 

of dollars per ton of NOx emission reduction, to be about $12,800 per ton, if the 

total cost is attributed solely to the NOx emission reductions. Staff estimates the 

overall cost-effectiveness of the proposed regulation, in terms of dollars per ton 

of PM emission reduction, to be is about $690,000 per ton if the total annualized 

cost is attributed solely to the PM reduction. Because the proposed regulation 

reduces significant amounts of both NOx and PM, staff also evaluated costeffectiveness by attributing half the total annualized cost to the PM emission 

reductions and half to the NOx emission reductions. The resulting 

cost-effectiveness values using that method are $6,400 per ton of NOx reduced 

and $345,000 per ton of PM reduced. 

For perspective, the cost-effectiveness values of the proposed regulation are 

compared to that for other regulations recently adopted by the Board. For 

example, the Heavy Duty Urban Bus Engines and Fleet Rule for Transit 

Agencies, approved by the Board in September 2005, estimated a costeffectiveness of nearly $68,000 per ton of NOx reduced, assuming all of the 

costs are attributed to NOx emissions reductions. The average cost-effectiveness 

of the proposed regulation is below the urban bus regulation’s value, as are the 

calculations for the individual terminals, with the exception of one terminal at 

Oakland, which is slightly above this cost-effectiveness level. 

The highest cost-effective values for regulations adopted by the Board to reduce 

PM emissions was about $320,000 per ton of PM reduced for the Diesel 
24 

Particulate Control Measure for On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles 

Owned or Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities. If the total costs of the 

proposed regulation are split between NOx emissions reductions and diesel PM 

reductions, then about half of the terminals are below this cost-effectiveness 

threshold. Again, the auxiliary engine fuel regulation already has reduced 

hotelling diesel PM emissions by 70 percent. 

The cost-effectiveness was calculated for each affected ship terminal in 

California. Table 5 shows the cost-effectiveness estimate for the proposed 

regulation expressed in three ways for each type of affected ship category. All 

costs are in equivalent 2006 expenditure dollars. 

Table 5: Summary of Cost-Effectiveness for Shore-Power 

 All Costs for 

NOx Only 

All Costs for 

PM Only 

Half Costs for 

NOx 

Half Costs for 

PM 

(Dollars per Ton of Pollutant Reduced) 

Container 

Ships—

POLA/POLB 

$11,000 to 

$32,000 

$400,000 to 

$1.1 million 

$5,500 to 

$16,000 

$200,000 to 

$550,000 

Container 

Ships--

Oakland 

$11,500 to 

$71,000 

$400,000 to 

$2.5 million 

$5,800 to 

$36,000 

$200,000 to 

$1.2 million 

Passenger 

Ships 

$13,000 to 

$47,000 

$440,000 to 

$1.6 million 

$6,400 to 

$23,000 

$220,000 to 

$810,000 

Reefer Ships $16,000 to 

$30,000 

$600,000 to 

$1 million 

$7,900 to 

$15,000 

$300,000 to 

$510,000 

13. FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED REGULATION 

 

The proposed regulation allows for two options to reduce hotelling emissions: 

1) ship operators can either shut down their auxiliary engines while in port 

(except for three or five permissible hours of operation per visit), or 2) they can 

reduce the at-berth emissions from those auxiliary engines by specified 

percentages while docked. 

Staff expects most ship operators to comply with the limited engine use option 

and to use shore power provided by the grid. However, some ship operators 

may decide to reduce their fleet hotelling emissions by applying a number of 

other techniques to their fleet, including using alternative sources of power at the 

berth (e.g. distributed generation equipment), and using onboard or shore-based 

engine emission control technologies. 
25 

A. Grid Supplied Shore Power 

Grid-supplied shore power has been proven and is technologically feasible. 

Shore power is already being used or will soon be used for passenger ships, 

container ships, bulk ships and oil tankers at California ports. POLA and POLB 

have committed to adding shore power to their passenger ship terminals and to 

several of their container ship terminals. Ships will soon be utilizing shore power 

at two additional container terminals at POLA and at a tanker terminal at POLB. 

Several passenger ships that visit California ports have been retrofitted to 

connect to shore power, and some container-ship owners have committed to 

adding shore power equipment to their new-builds and retrofitting some of their 

existing fleet with shore-power capabilities. 

Although this is a proven technology, there are challenges to implementing shore 

power as an emission reduction measure. Modifications would be needed to 

both terminals and ships to utilize grid-based shore power as a method for 

reducing hotelling emissions. The modifications that would be necessary to install 

and utilize shore power are discussed in more detail in Chapter VII of the 

Technical Support Document. 

B. Alternative Emission Reduction Measures 

An alternative to the limited engine use compliance approach is the “emissions 

reduction option,” in which the fleets reduce their auxiliary engine emissions at a 

port by specified percentages and dates. The emission reduction techniques that 

could be applied to a fleet include: 1) using select vessels for grid-supplied power 

based on potential auxiliary engine emission reductions rather than fleet visit 

percentages; 2) using alternative sources of power (distributed generation 

equipment) to provide power to a vessel; 3) using alternative emission controls 

onboard a vessel or located adjacent to the vessel; and 4) using a combination of 

these techniques. 

Alternative emission control technologies for auxiliary engines could include 

alternative fuels and post-combustion control measures. Emission control 

equipment for auxiliary engines could be placed at the berth or onboard the 

ships. While many control technologies have been proven to reduce emissions 

of PM and NOx from land-based diesel-fueled engines, there is limited 

experience in applying these technologies to marine vessel engines. In addition, 

there are currently no emission control strategies verified by the ARB for marine 

applications. Some of these technologies have been applied to harbor craft 

engines, but those applications were on much smaller engines than the auxiliary 

engines on ocean-going vessels. 

A few demonstration projects have been conducted on auxiliary ocean-going 

vessel engines. These involved the use of portable distributed generation, a 
26 

seawater scrubber, biodiesel fuel, an on-demand water/fuel emulsion system, 

and selective catalytic reduction. However, because these technology 

demonstrations are still at an early stage, ARB staff cannot predict at this time 

the future deployment or feasibility of these alternative technologies as effective 

emission control measures for auxiliary engines on ships at berth. 

14. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

Staff considered two regulatory alternatives: 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. 

Alternative 1 would target 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 alternative 

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.” 

Staff estimated that this regulatory alternative would be as effective as the 

proposed regulation; however, staff did not pursue this alternative because of the 

complexity and difficulty of tracking the ships that were required to reduce 

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

ships would replace them in California service, creating excessive recordkeeping 

requirements and practical enforcement challenges. 

Alternative 2 requires vessel operators to install BACT on their auxiliary engines. 

Currently, few emission-control technologies that have been used successfully 

on land-based engine applications have been demonstrated on marine engines. 

Nevertheless, for the purpose of determining a potential cost-effectiveness of this 

alternative, staff selected selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for NOx emissions 

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

reductions. 

Installing this equipment on the same ships affected by the proposed regulation 

would cost less than the overall cost of the proposed regulation. However, the 

reduction of PM emissions would be considerably less with this BACT alternative 

because DOCs achieve only about 25 percent PM emission reductions. 

Furthermore, the varying load of the auxiliary engines during transiting, 

maneuvering, and hotelling would compromise the performance of the SCR, 

achieving less than 80 percent emissions reduction.

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 did not pursue this alternative regulatory 

alternative. 
27 

15. OUTREACH 

ARB’s outreach efforts for the proposed regulation began during the 

development of its draft cold-ironing feasibility report (Evaluation Report). ARB 

staff first discussed a plan for analyzing the cost-effectiveness of cold-ironing 

ocean-going vessels at a public consultation meeting on November 9, 2004. 

During the Evaluation Report’s development, staff visited four ports in California: 

Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, and San Diego. Staff also visited three 

cold-ironing applications in the State. Staff also held conference calls or met with 

shipping companies, utility companies, environmental groups, and other 

organizations interested in cold-ironing applications. 

ARB staff solicited public input on the Evaluation Report when it was released in 

March 2006 and considered the comments received when they began 

developing draft concepts for a shore power regulation. 

Staff also coordinated with the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach in the 

development of the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP), which 

was released in November 2006. The CAAP identifies shore power as a 

measure to control hotelling emissions and identifies specific terminals and 

berths that will be equipped with shore power capability and the expected 

completion dates for these projects. ARB staff considered the CAAP’s shore 

power requirements as we began our development of the proposed regulation 

with a goal of developing a proposed measure that would be consistent with the 

CAAP and complementary to the ports’ ongoing emissions reduction efforts. 

ARB staff and interested parties formed a workgroup in early 2007 to assist staff 

with developing a shore power regulation. Many of the stakeholders that 

assisted ARB staff with developing the Evaluation Report were also members of 

the workgroup. 

Five shore power workgroup meetings were held between January and August 

2007. At the end of that process, ARB staff decided that it was appropriate to 

transition from the workgroup process to a more formal rulemaking process. 

Subsequently, staff held four public workshops in September 2007 to discuss the 

draft proposed regulation. Two of these workshops were evening meetings held 

in community centers near ports, where staff could seek input from those 

communities most impacted by hotelling emissions. 

ARB staff created a shore power electronic list serve and webpage to notify 

interested parties of the workgroups and to post drafts of the regulation before 

they were discussed at the meetings. Over 2000 individuals and companies 

have subscribed to the shore power list serve. 
28 

In addition to the workgroup and workshop meetings, staff’s outreach efforts also 

included hundreds of personal contacts via telephone and electronic mail; 

numerous individual meetings with interested parties, including port 

representatives, environmental groups, utility representatives, and shipping 

representatives; and informational visits to ports. Staff visited the Port of 

Hueneme in early 2007, where staff had the opportunity to observe refrigerated 

cargo ships carrying break-bulk products and discuss regulation development 

with port staff. ARB staff also toured a containerized refrigerated cargo ship at 

the Port of San Diego. At the Port of Oakland, ARB staff toured a container ship 

that was equipped with shore power capability and observed a demonstration of 

a portable distributed generation power source for powering container ships while 

in port. 

16. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

A public process that involves all parties affected by the proposed regulation is 

an important component of ARB rulemaking activities. The proposal is consistent 

with the ARB’s environmental justice policy to reduce health risks from toxic air 

contaminants in all communities, including low-income and minority communities. 

The proposed regulation would reduce diesel PM and other emissions from 

ocean-going vessels at berth in communities surrounding the six major ports of 

California. The majority of these reductions will occur at the Los Angeles-Long 

Beach and Bay Area ports, which are surrounded by densely populated areas, 

including some in low-income and minority communities. Therefore, the proposal 

will help address environmental justice concerns by reducing emissions and 

health risks in the areas where hotelling emissions have the greatest impacts. 

17. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT 

We believe that ARB staff needs to take the following actions to efficiently and 

effectively implement the proposed regulation: 

• develop an outreach program to inform the 35 ship companies, 

31 terminals and six ports affected by the proposed regulation of the 

regulation’s requirements, as well as provide information about incentive 

programs such as the existing Carl Moyer program and the upcoming 

Proposition 1B air quality mitigation funds; 

• develop recordkeeping and reporting guidance; and,

• provide implementation guidance and assistance as needed. 

18. RECOMMENDATION 

We recommend the Board approve the proposed regulation for ocean-going 

vessels at berth presented in Appendix A of the Staff Report. The proposal 

would provide substantial benefits by requiring diesel-fueled auxiliary engines on 
29 

ocean-going vessels to be shut down while in port, or reducing an equivalent 

amount of emissions by using alternative control methods. These benefits 

include reducing diesel PM, NOx, and other air pollutant emissions from these 

engines which, in turn, would reduce human exposure to such pollutants and the 

concomitant health risk across California, particularly in communities adjacent to 

the ports. ARB staff believes the proposed regulation and its recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements are technologically feasible, cost-effective, and necessary 

to carry out the Board’s responsibilities under State law and implement 

provisions of the Emission Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement 

approved by the Board in April 2006. 
30 

REFERENCES:

California Air Resources Board. Evaluation of Cold-Ironing Ocean-Going 

Vessels at California Ports; March 2006. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/ports/shorepower/report.pdf 

California Air Resources Board. Expanded List of Early Action Measures to 

Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California Recommended for Board 

Consideration, October 2007. 

California Air Resources Board. Proposed Amendments to the Exhaust 

Emission Standards for 2007-2009 Model-Year Heavy Duty Urban Bus Engines 

and the Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies; September 2005. (ARB, 2005c) 

California Air Resources Board. Proposed Diesel Particulate Matter Control 

Measure for On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles Owned or Operated 

by Public Agencies and Utilities; October 2005. (ARB, 2005b) 

California Air Resources Board. Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate Climate 

Change in California, April 2007. 

California Air Resources Board. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate 

Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles; October 2000. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpapp.htm

Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach. San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air 

Action Plan; November 2006. 

http://www.portoflosangeles.org/DOC/CAAP_Tech_Report_Final.pdf and/or 

http://www.polb.com/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3451 

Schwarzenegger, Arnold, “Executive Order S-3-05.” June 1, 2005. 
Appendix 

Proposed Regulations for At-Berth Ocean-Going Vessels 

A-1 

PROPOSED REGULATION ORDER 

OPERATIONAL HOUR LIMITS AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR 

AUXILIARY DIESEL ENGINES OPERATED ON 

OCEAN-GOING VESSELS AT-BERTH IN A CALIFORNIA PORT

Adopt new section 2299.3, title 13, chapter 5.1, California Code of Regulations 

(CCR), to read as follows: 

(Note: The entire text of section 2299.3 is new language.): 

Section 2299.3. Operational Hour Limits and Other Requirements for 

Auxiliary Diesel Engines Operated on Ocean-Going Vessels At-Berth in a 

California Port. 

(a) Purpose. 

The purpose of this section is to reduce oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and diesel 

particulate matter (PM) emissions from the operation of auxiliary engines on 

container ships, passenger ships, and refrigerated cargo ships while these 

vessels are docked at berth at a California port. This section reduces emissions 

by limiting the time during which auxiliary diesel engines are operated on the 

regulated vessels while such vessels are docked at-berth in a California port, as 

well as by applying other requirements. This section implements provisions of 

the Goods Movement Emission Reduction Plan, adopted by the Air Resources 

Board (ARB) in April 2006, to reduce emissions and health risk from ports and 

the movement of goods in California. This section also helps achieve the goals 

specified in the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, established 

under California law by Assembly Bill 32 (Stats. 2006, ch. 488) and set forth in 

Health and Safety Code § 38500 et seq. 

(b) Applicability and General Exemptions. 

(1) Except as provided in this subsection (b), this section applies to any 

person who owns, operates, charters, rents, or leases any U.S. or 

foreign-flagged container ship, passenger ship, or refrigerated cargo 

ship that visits a California port. In addition, this section also applies to 

any person who owns or operates a port or terminal located at a port 

where container, passenger, or refrigerated cargo vessels visit. 

(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 
A-2 

requirements of this section, including but not limited to, obtaining any 

necessary approvals, exemptions, or orders from the U.S. Coast 

Guard. 

 (3) The requirements of this section do not apply to: 

 (A) Ocean-going vessel voyages that are comprised 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” includes stopping and anchoring only to 

the extent such stopping and anchoring are required by the U.S. 

Coast Guard; rendered necessary by force majeure or distress; or 

made for the purpose of rendering assistance to persons, ships, 

or aircraft in danger or distress. This exemption does not apply to 

the passage of an ocean-going vessel that engages in any of the 

prejudicial activities specified in United Nations Convention on the 

Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) 1982, Article 19, subpart 2. Further, 

notwithstanding any Coast Guard mandated stops or stops due to 

force majeure or the rendering of assistance, this exemption does 

not apply to a vessel that was otherwise scheduled or intended to 

enter California internal or estuarine waters or call at a port, 

roadstead or terminal facility. 

 (B) Auxiliary engines on-board ocean-going vessels owned or 

operated by any branch of local, state, federal government, or by 

a foreign government, when such vessels are operated on 

government non-commercial service. However, such vessels are 

encouraged to act in a manner consistent, so far as is reasonable 

and practicable, with this section. 

 (C) Steamships while berthed at a California port. 

 

 (D) Auxiliary engines while such engines are operating primarily on 

liquefied natural gas or compressed natural gas. 

(c) Definitions.

For purposes of this section, the definitions in Health and Safety Code sections 

39010 through 39060 shall apply except as otherwise specified in this section: 

(1) “Alternative Control Technologies” means technologies, techniques, or 

measures that reduce the emissions of NOx and PM from an auxiliary 

diesel engine other than shutting down the engine. 
A-3 

(2) “Auxiliary Engine” means an engine on an ocean-going vessel 

designed primarily to provide power for uses other than propulsion, 

except that all diesel-electric engines shall be considered “auxiliary 

diesel engines” for purposes of this section. 

(3) “Baseline Fleet Emissions” means the total emissions from all vessels 

in a fleet during all berthing times in a calendar year or other specified 

time period. For purposes of calculating the baseline fleet emissions, 

the auxiliary engines on the vessels in the fleet shall be assumed to 

use marine diesel fuel while at berth. 

(4) “Berthing Time” means the time period that begins when the vessel is 

first tied to the berth and ends when the vessel is untied from the berth. 

(5) “California Ports” means: 

(A) The Port of Hueneme, the Port of Los Angeles (POLA) and Port 

of Long Beach (POLB), the Port of Oakland, the Port of San 

Diego, and the Port of San Francisco; 

(B) For purposes of this section, POLA and POLB are treated as one 

port. 

(6) “Container Vessel” means a self-propelled ocean-going vessel 

constructed or adapted primarily to carry uniform-sized ocean freight 

containers. 

(7) “Diesel Engine” means an internal combustion, compression-ignition 

(CI) engine with operating characteristics significantly similar to the 

theoretical diesel combustion cycle. The regulation of power by 

controlling fuel supply in lieu of a throttle is indicative of a compression 

ignition engine. 

(8) “Diesel-Electric Engine” means a diesel engine connected to a 

generator that is used as a source of electricity for propulsion or other 

uses. 

(9) “Diesel Particulate Matter” means the particles found in the exhaust of 

diesel engines, which may agglomerate and adsorb other species to 

form structures of complex physical and chemical properties. 

(10) “Distributed Generation” shall have the same meaning as that term is 

defined in title 17, CCR, section 94202. 

(11) “Docked at the Berth” means the state of being tied to a berth. 
A-4 

(12) “Emergency Event” means the period of time during which any of the 

following events occurs; the emergency event begins when such an 

event begins and ends when the event is over: 

(A) Any situation arising from a sudden and reasonably unforeseen 

event beyond the control of the master that threatens the safety of 

the vessel; 

(B) The utility serving the port states that electrical power will be 

temporarily unavailable as a result of equipment failure; or 

(C) The electrical system at the terminal cannot provide electrical 

power as a result of equipment failure; or 

(13) “Executive Officer” means the executive officer of the Air Resources 

Board (ARB), or his or her designee. 

(14) “Fleet” means all container, passenger, and refrigerated cargo (reefer) 

vessels, visiting a specific California port, which are owned or operated 

under the direct control of the same person. Direct control includes, 

but is not limited to, vessels that are operated under a contract, lease, 

or other arrangement with a third-party for the third-party to operate the 

vessel. For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to 

have separate fleets for each California port visited. For example, if a 

person owns or operates vessels that visit both the Port of Los Angeles 

and Port of Oakland, that person is deemed to have two fleets, one a 

“POLA-based fleet” and the other a “Port of Oakland-based fleet.” 

(15) “IMO” means the International Maritime Organization. 

(16) “Landlord Port” means a California port that leases the port’s real 

property to a person(s). 

(17) “Master” means the person who operates an ocean-going vessel or is 

otherwise in charge of the vessel’s operations. 

(18) “Ocean-Going Vessel” means a commercial, government, or military 

vessel meeting any one of the following criteria: 

(A) A vessel greater than or equal to 400 feet in length overall (LOA) 

as defined in 50 CFR § 679.2, as adopted June 19, 1996; 
A-5 

(B) A vessel greater than or equal to 10,000 gross tons (GT ITC) 

pursuant to the convention measurement (international system) 

as defined in 46 CFR § 69.51-.61, as adopted September 12, 

1989; or 

(C) A vessel propelled by a marine compression ignition engine with a 

per-cylinder displacement of greater than or equal to 30 liters. 

For the purposes of this section, “ocean-going vessel” will be 

used interchangeably with the term “vessel.” 

(19) “Operate” means steering or otherwise running the vessel or its 

functions while the vessel is underway, moored, anchored, or at berth. 

(20) “Operate an Auxiliary Diesel Engine” means running or idling an 

auxiliary diesel engine such that it is producing mechanical work or 

electricity or is otherwise consuming fuel. 

(21) “Own” means having all the incidents of ownership, including the legal 

title, of a vessel whether or not that person leads, rents, or pledges the 

vessel; having or being entitled to the possession of a vessel as the 

purchaser under a conditional sale contract; or being the mortgagor of 

a vessel. 

(22) “Oxides of Nitrogen” means compounds of nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2), and other oxides of nitrogen, which are typically created 

during combustion processes and are major contributors to smog 

formation and acid deposition. 

(23) “Particulate Matter” means any airborne finely divided material, except 

uncombined water, which exists as a liquid or solid at standard 

conditions (e.g., dust, smoke, mist, fumes, or smog). 

(24) “Passenger Vessel” means a self-propelled vessel constructed or 

adapted primarily to carry people. 

(25) “Person” includes all of the following: 

(A) Any person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business 

trust, corporation, limited liability company, or company; 

(B) Any state or local governmental agency or public district, or any 

officer or employee thereof; 
A-6 

(C) The United States or its agencies, to the extent authorized by 

federal law. 

(26) “Post-Baseline Fleet Emissions” means the total emissions from all 

vessels in a fleet after the application of alternative control 

technologies during all berthing times in a calendar year or other 

specified time period. For purposes of calculating the baseline fleet 

emissions, the auxiliary engines on the vessels in the fleet shall be 

assumed to use marine diesel fuel while at berth. 

(27) “Refrigerated Cargo (or Reefer) Vessel” means a self-propelled vessel 

constructed or adapted primarily to carry refrigerated cargo. Reefer 

vessels include vessels where the cargo may be stored in large 

refrigerated rooms within the vessel or vessels that carry exclusively 

refrigerated cargo containers. 

(28) “Responsible Official” means the individual(s) with the authority to 

certify that all vessels in a fleet comply with applicable requirements of 

this regulation. 

(29) “Shore power” refers to electrical power being provided by either the 

local utility or by distributed generation. 

(30) “Steamship” means a self-propelled vessel in which the primary 

propulsion and electrical power are provided by steam boilers. 

(31) “Synchronous Power Transfer” means the synchronized switchover in 

vessel-based power to shore-based power without a loss in power 

during such transfer. 

(32) “Terminal” means a facility consisting of wharves, piers, docks and 

other berthing locations and adjacent storage, which are used primarily 

for loading and unloading of cargo or material from vessels or the 

temporary storage of this cargo or material on-site. 

(33) “Terminal Operator” means a person that leases terminal property from 

a port for the purpose of loading and unloading of cargo or material 

from vessels or the temporary storage of this cargo or material on-site. 

(34) “Utility” shall have the same meaning and be used interchangeably 

with the term “Electric Utility” as defined in Public Resources Code 

section 28105. 

(35) “Verified Emission Control Strategy” means an emission control 

strategy that has been verified pursuant to the “Verification Procedure 
A-7 

for In-Use Strategies to Control Emissions from Diesel Engines” in title 

13, California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 2700, 

which is incorporated herein by reference. 

(36) “Visit” means the time period that begins when an ocean-going vessel 

initially ties to a berth (the beginning of the visit) and ends when it 

casts off the lines (the end of the visit) at a berth in a California port. 

Separate and sequential visits shall collectively be deemed a single 

visit when a vessel ties to two or more berths at the same California 

port and the time interval between leaving one berth and tying to 

another berth in the same port is less than two hours. 

(d) Vessel In-Use Operational Requirements. 

(1) Limits on Hours and Other Aspects of Operation for Auxiliary Diesel 

Engines on Container, Passenger, and Refrigerated Cargo (Reefer) 

Vessels.

(A) Except as provided in subsection (d)(2), beginning January 1, 

2014, no less than 50 percent of a fleet’s visits to a California port 

in a calendar quarter, rounded to the nearest whole visit, shall 

meet the following limits on the number of hours auxiliary diesel 

engines on such vessels may be operated at berth: 

1. Three hours total per visit, provided the visiting vessel uses a 

synchronous power transfer process to change from vesselbased power to shore-based power; or 

2. Five hours total per visit, provided the visiting vessel does not 

use a synchronous power transfer process to change from 

vessel-based power to shore-based power. 

For example, if a person’s fleet makes 10 visits to a California port 

in a calendar quarter, the auxiliary diesel engines on vessels in at 

least 5 of those visits shall be operated no more than a combined 

3 or 5 hours total, depending on whether a synchronous power 

transfer is used. The 3- and 5-hour limit applies to the combined 

operating time for all auxiliary diesel engines used in a vessel 

visit, rather than on a per-engine basis. 

(B) Except as provided in subsection (d)(2), beginning January 1, 

2020, no less than 80 percent of a fleet’s visits to a California port 

in a calendar quarter, rounded to the nearest whole visit, shall 

meet the following limits on the number of hours auxiliary diesel 

engines on such vessels may be operated at berth: 
A-8 

1. Three hours total per visit, provided the visiting vessel uses a 

synchronous power transfer process to change from vesselbased power to shore-based power; or 

2. Five hours total per visit, provided the visiting vessel does not 

use a synchronous power transfer process to change from 

vessel-based power to shore-based power. 

For example, if a person’s fleet makes 10 visits to a California port 

in a calendar quarter, the auxiliary diesel engines on vessels in at 

least 5 of those visits shall be operated no more than a combined 

3 or 5 hours total, depending on whether a synchronous power 

transfer is used. The 3- and 5-hour limit applies to the combined 

operating time for all auxiliary diesel engines used in a vessel 

visit, rather than on a per-engine basis. 

(C) Compliance with the requirements in subsection (d)(1)(A) and 

(d)(1)(B) shall be determined quarterly for the periods specified as 

follows: 

1. January 1 through March 31, inclusive; 

2. April 1 through June 30, inclusive; 

3. July 1 through September 30, inclusive; and 

4. October 1 through December 31, inclusive. 

(D) Except as otherwise specified in subsection (d)(1)(F), the 

requirements of subsection (d)(1)(A) and (d)(1)(B) do not apply to: 

1. A fleet comprised solely of container or reefer vessels that 

visits a California port fewer than 25 times total in a calendar 

year; and 

2. A fleet comprised solely of passenger vessels that visits a 

California port fewer than 5 times total in a calendar year. 

(E) No person shall sell, supply, offer to supply, or purchase electrical 

power for use on a vessel during a visit in lieu of using the onboard auxiliary diesel engines, unless such electrical power is 

either supplied by the local utility or is otherwise generated by 

equipment that meet the following emission standards: 
A-9 

1. NOx emissions no greater than 0.03 gram per kilowatt-hour 

(g/kW-hr); 

2. PM emissions equivalent to the combustion of natural gas with 

a fuel sulfur content of no more than one grain per 100 

standard cubic foot; 

3. CO2 emissions shall be no greater than 500 g/kW-hr; and 

4. Ammonia emissions no greater than five parts per million on a 

dry volume basis (ppmdv), if selective catalytic reduction is 

used. 

(F) Notwithstanding the requirements specified in subsection 

(d)(1)(A) and (d)(1)(B), any ocean-going vessel equipped to 

receive shore power that visits a berth equipped to provide 

compatible shore power shall utilize the shore power during every 

visit to that berth. This requirement shall not apply under the 

following circumstances: 

1. The master of the vessel reasonably and actually determines 

that an emergency event, as defined in subsection (c)(12)(A), 

is in effect and the use of shore power during the emergency 

event would endanger the vessel’s safety. Shore power shall 

be used for the remainder of the visit once the master 

determines that the emergency event no longer exists; 

2. An emergency event, as defined in subsection (c)(12)(B) or 

(c)(12)(C), is in effect. Shore power shall be used for the 

remainder of the visit once the emergency event is no longer 

in effect; or 

3. The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) has 

declared a Stage 3 emergency and the utility providing 

electrical power to the port is requesting the terminal where 

the vessel is located to reduce the use of grid-based electrical 

power. Shore power shall be used for the remainder of the 

visit once CAISO declares the Stage 3 emergency is over. 

(2) Emissions Reduction Option. 

The purpose of this provision is to allow any person the option of 

complying with the requirements of this subsection (d)(2) in lieu of 

meeting the requirements of subsection (d)(1). 
A-10 

Requirements. 

(A) For fleets visiting terminals that are providing electrical power 

from the utility’s electrical grid, the owner or operator of the fleets 

shall comply with the following schedule: 

1. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2014, and each 

subsequent quarter through December 31, 2019, inclusive, the 

NOx and PM emissions at berth from the fleet’s auxiliary 

engines must be reduced by 50 percent from the baseline fleet 

emissions. 

2. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2020, and each 

subsequent quarter thereafter, the NOx and PM emissions at 

berth from the fleet’s auxiliary engines must be reduced by 80 

percent from the baseline fleet emissions. 

(B) For fleets visiting terminals that are providing electrical power 

from sources that are not part of an utility’s electrical grid, or 

alternative control technologies are used to reduce the emissions 

of the fleet, the owner or operator of the fleet shall comply with the 

following schedule: 

1. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2010, and each 

subsequent quarter through December 31, 2011, inclusive, the 

NOx and PM emissions at berth from the fleet’s auxiliary 

engines must be reduced by 20 percent from the baseline fleet 

emissions. 

2. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2012, and each 

subsequent quarter through December 31, 2013, inclusive, the 

NOx and PM emissions at berth from the fleet’s auxiliary 

engines must be reduced by 40 percent from the baseline fleet 

emissions. 

3. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2014, and each 

subsequent quarter through December 31, 2015, inclusive, the 

NOx and PM emissions at berth from the fleet’s auxiliary 

engines must be reduced by 60 percent from the baseline fleet 

emissions. 

4. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2016, and each 

subsequent quarter thereafter, the NOx and PM emissions 

from the fleet’s auxiliary engines must be reduced by 80 

percent from the baseline fleet emissions. 
A-11 

(C) For fleets visiting terminals that are using a combination of 

electrical power from the utility grid and electrical power from 

sources that are not part of an utility’s electrical grid, or alternative 

control technologies, the following schedule applies: 

1. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2012, and each 

subsequent quarter through December 31, 2013, inclusive, the 

NOx and PM emissions at berth from the fleet’s auxiliary 

engines must be reduced by 20 percent from the baseline fleet 

emissions. 

2. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2014, and each 

subsequent quarter through December 31, 2019, inclusive, the 

NOx and PM emissions from the fleet’s auxiliary engines must 

be reduced by 50 percent from the baseline fleet emissions. 

3. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2020, and each 

subsequent quarter thereafter, the NOx and PM emissions 

from the fleet’s auxiliary engines must be reduced by 80 

percent from the baseline fleet emissions. 

(D) Compliance with the requirements of subsection (d)(2)(A), 

(d)(2)(B), and (d)(2)(C) shall be determined quarterly for the 

periods specified as follows: 

1. January 1 through March 31, inclusive; 

2. April 1 through June 30, inclusive; 

3. July 1 through September 30, inclusive; and 

4. October 1 through December 31, inclusive. 

(E) No person shall sell, supply, offer to supply, or purchase electrical 

power for use on a vessel during a visit in lieu of using the onboard auxiliary diesel engines, unless such electrical power is 

either be supplied by the local utility or is otherwise generated by 

equipment that meet the following emission: 

1. NOx Emissions. 

a. Up to and including December 31, 2013, the NOx 

emissions shall be no greater than 2 g/kW-hr at any time; 

and 
A-12 

b. Beginning January 1, 2014, the NOx emissions shall 

be no greater than 0.2 g/kW-hr at any time; 

2. PM emissions shall be no greater than the PM emissions from 

combustion of natural gas with a fuel sulfur content of no more 

than one grain per 100 standard cubic foot; 

3. CO2 emissions shall be no greater than 500 g/kW-hr; and 

4. Ammonia emissions shall be no greater than five ppmdv if 

selective catalytic reduction is used. 

(e) Exemptions to the Three-Hour or Five-Hour Limited Auxiliary Engine 

Operation Requirement in Subsection (d)(1)(A)(1), (d)(1)(A)(2), (d)(1)(B)(1) 

and (d)(1)(B)(2). 

(1) Emergency Event. 

 All of the following requirements apply to claimed exemptions based on 

emergency events: 

(A) If the master of the vessel reasonably and actually determines 

that an emergency event, as defined subsection (c)(12), occurs 

during the vessel’s visit to a California port, the master of the 

vessel may operate the vessel’s auxiliary engines during the 

emergency event; 

(B) The master shall not operate the vessel’s auxiliary engines for 

more than one hour beyond the time when the master receives 

notification that the emergency event is over, determines that the 

emergency event is over, or should have known the emergency 

event is over; and 

(C) The provisions of paragraph (B) above notwithstanding, the 

master may continue to operate the auxiliary engines for no more 

than five hours if the master receives notification that the 

emergency event is over, determines that the emergency event is 

over, or should have known the emergency event is over and the 

vessel is scheduled to leave port within five hours. 

(2) Delays Caused By U.S. Coast Guard or Department of Homeland 

Security Inspections. 
A-13 

The Executive Officer may extend the three-hour/five-hour operational 

requirement in subsection (d)(1)(A) and (d)(1)(B) if the following criteria 

are met: 

(A) The initial inspection and clearance of the vessel by the 

Department of Homeland Security exceeds one hour. The time 

extension granted shall be commensurate with the excess time 

necessary for inspection and clearance; or 

(B) After the auxiliary engines have been put back into service 

pending departure from the berth, the scheduled departure of the 

vessel has been delayed by the United States (U.S.) Coast Guard 

or the Department of Homeland Security. 

(f) Calculations for Emissions Reduction Option in Subsection (d)(2). 

(1) For the purposes of subsection (d)(2)(A), (d)(2)(B), and (d)(2)(C), the 

percent emission reduction shall be calculated as follows: 

Percent Reduction = (BFE – PBFE) / BFE 

Where, 

The baseline fleet and post-baseline fleet emissions are calculated as 

follows: 

(A) Baseline Fleet Emissions (BFE). 

The baseline fleet emissions of NOx and PM shall be calculated 

using the following formula: 

Baseline Fleet Emissions = ∑ (emission rate x average berthing 

time x power requirement x visits) 

Where: 

“Emission rate” for each auxiliary engine is determined pursuant 

to subsection (f)(2); 

“Average berthing time” for each vessel is determined for the 

applicable period specified in subsection (d)(2)(D);

“Power requirements” means the electrical power requirement for 

each vessel as determined pursuant to subsection (f)(3);
A-14 

“Visits” means the total number of visits by the vessel during the 

applicable period specified in subsection (d)(2)(D); and 

“∑” means the summation over the entire fleet subject to the 

emission reduction option. 

(B) Post-Baseline Fleet Emissions (PBFE). 

The post-baseline fleet emissions of NOx and PM shall be 

calculated using the following formula: 

Post-Baseline Fleet Emissions = ∑ (emission rate x average 

berthing time x power requirement x visits x control factor) 

Where: 

“Emission rate” for each auxiliary engine is determined pursuant 

to subsection (f)(2); 

“Average berthing time” for each vessel is determined for the 

applicable period specified in subsection (d)(2)(D);

“Power requirements” means the electrical power requirement for 

each vessel as determined pursuant to subsection (f)(3);

“Visits” means the total number of visits by the vessel during the 

applicable period specified in subsection (d)(2)(D); 

“Control factor” means the applicable control factor specified in 

subsection (f)(4); and 

“∑” means the summation over the entire fleet subject to the 

emission reduction option. 

(2) A person complying with the requirements of subsection (d)(2) may 

choose any of the following emissions rates for use in the calculations 

specified in subsection (f)(1)(A) and (f)(1)(B): 

(A) Results from emission measurements for similar auxiliary diesel 

engines that are used to satisfy a marine engine standard, 

including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emission 

standards for marine engines (40 CFR Part 94), and the 

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from 
A-15 

Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 

73/78), both of which are incorporated herein by reference; 

(B) Emission measurements approved by the Executive Officer and 

using the test methods specified in subsection (f)(4)(B)(3); or 

(C) In lieu of test data measured pursuant to paragraph (A) or (B) 

above, the following emission rates may be used as default 

values: 

1. 13.9 g/kW-hr for NOx. 

2. 0.38 g/kW-hr for PM if 0.11 to 0.5 percent sulfur marine gas oil 

is used as a fuel. 

3. 0.25 g/kW-hr for PM if 0.10 or less sulfur content marine gas 

oil is used as a fuel. 

(3) Power Requirements. 

(A) The following values in Table 1 may be used as default values for 

power requirements: 

Table 1. 

 TEU = twenty-foot equivalent unit. 

kW = kilowatt 

Ship Category Ship Size / Type Default Power 

Requirement (kW) 

Container Vessel <1000 TEU 1,000 

 1,000-1,999 TEU 1,300 

 2,000-2,999 TEU 1,600 

 3,000-3,999 TEU 1,900 

 4,000-4,999 TEU 2,200 

 5,000-5,999 TEU 2,300 

 6,000-6,999 TEU 2,500 

 7,000-7,999 TEU 2,900 

 8,000-9,999 TEU 3,300 

 10,000-12,000 TEU 3,700 

Passenger Vessel No Default Value – 

Use Actual Load 

Reefer Break Bulk 1,300 

 Fully Containerized 3,300 
A-16 

(B) In lieu of the default values above, the fleet operator may, with 

adequate supporting documentation, use the following: 

1. The actual shore power usage, on a monthly basis, rounded to 

the nearest whole kW-hrs, of the vessels in the fleet utilizing 

shore power, or 

2. The actual on-board power usage, on a monthly basis, 

rounded to the nearest whole kW-hrs, of the vessels in the 

fleet utilizing alternative control technologies. 

(4) Control Factors. 

(A) The emissions from vessels using grid power in lieu of the 

vessel’s auxiliary engines when the vessels are at berth are 

presumed to be reduced by 90 percent. 

(B) No control efficiencies for alternative control technologies shall be 

used to comply with the requirements of this provision unless the 

control efficiencies are calculated or measured as follows: 

1. The control efficiencies shall be based on an emission test 

protocol that is approved by the Executive Officer prior to 

conducting the emission measurements; 

2. The results of the emission measurements conducted 

pursuant to paragraph 1 above are approved by the Executive 

Officer; and 

3. Emission measurements are conducted using the following 

test methods: 

a. NOx and CO2 shall be measured using California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) Test Method 100, dated July 

1997, which is incorporated herein by reference, or

equivalent district-approved test method; 

b. Diesel PM shall be measured using ISO 8178 Test 

Procedures: ISO 8178-1: 1996(E) (“ISO 8178 Part 1”); ISO 

8178-2:1996(E) (“ISO 8178 Part 2”); and ISO 8178-4:

1996(E) (“ISO 8178 Part 4”), all of which are incorporated 

herein by reference; and

c. Ammonia slip shall be measured using the Bay Area Air 

Quality Management District Source Test Procedure 
A-17 

ST-1B, Ammonia Integrated Sampling, dated 

January 1982, which is incorporated herein by reference, 

or other equivalent district approved test method.

d. The sulfur content of fuels shall be determined pursuant to 

International Standard ISO 8754 (as adopted in 2003), 

which is incorporated herein by reference.

(C) Results from emission measurements from a verified emission 

control strategy may be used in conjunction with engine emission 

information. 

(D) The Executive Officer may request periodic emission testing or 

other types of monitoring to verify the proper operation of 

alternative control technologies or to verify the emission rate of an 

auxiliary engine. 

1. At a minimum, emission control technologies shall be tested 

as follows and the results of such testing provided to the 

Executive Officer within 30 days of the testing: 

a. Shore-based systems shall be tested annually to 

demonstrate the overall percentage of emission reduction 

being achieved. 

b. Catalyst based air pollution control systems installed on 

vessels shall be tested after every 1,000 hours of operation 

to determine the overall percentage of emission reduction 

being achieved. 

c. If Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) is used as a control 

technology, the emissions of ammonia shall also be 

measured at the same time the NOx emissions are being 

measured. 

2. The Executive Officer may modify the testing frequency as 

he/she deems appropriate. 

(g) Terminal Plan Requirements. 

(1) A terminal that receives more than 50 vessel visits in 2008 shall submit 

a plan for the Executive Officer’s approval that discusses how the 

terminal will accommodate the vessels that will visit the terminal who 

are subject to subsection (d)(1) and (d)(2). The terminal shall submit 

the plan and subsequent updates to the plan according to the schedule 

below (Table 2). The plan updates shall address any contingencies 
A-18 

that may be necessary for the vessels to meet the requirements of 

subsection (d)(1)and (d)(2) by the applicable dates. 

Table 2. 

Vessel Compliance Option Initial Terminal 

Plan Due Date 

Subsequent Terminal 

Plan Updates 

Grid-Based Shore Power: 

(d)(1) and (d)(2)(A) July 1, 2009 July 1, 2013 July 1, 2019 

Alternative Control 

Technologies to Grid-Based 

Shore Power: (d)(2)(B) 

July 1, 2009 

July 1, 2011 

July 1, 2013 

July 1, 2015 

Combination of Grid-Based 

Shore Power and Alternative 

Control Technologies: 

(d)(2)(C) 

July 1, 2009 

July 1, 2011 

July 1, 2013 

July 1, 2015 

July 1, 2019 

(2) Plan Requirements for Grid-Based Shore Power. 

(A) Specify the schedule for implementing infrastructure 

modifications, including the following: 

1. Utility infrastructure improvements, if any, outside the port 

boundary; 

2. Improvements to port infrastructure; and 

3. Major infrastructure improvements to terminal. 

(B) Identification of existing berths to be modified or new berths to be 

constructed that will satisfy the requirements of subsection (d)(1). 

(3) Plan Requirements for Alternative Control Technologies. 

(A) Description of the approach that will be used to reduce in-berth 

vessel emissions, including whether the approach is a vesselbased approach or shore-based approach; 

(B) Identification and description of equipment; 

(C) Berth(s) where the equipment will be used; 
A-19 

(D) Specific vessels affected by the technology; and 

(E) Estimate of the expected reductions in NOx and PM emissions 

from vessels using the technology, including documentation 

supporting the anticipated reductions. 

(4) Plan Requirements for a Combination of Grid-Based Shore Power and 

Alternative Control Technologies. 

(A) Identification of which berths will implement grid-based shore 

power and which berths will implement alternative control 

technologies 

(B) For berths implementing shore-based grid power, the plan must 

contain the information specified in subsection (g)(2). 

(C) For berths implementing alternative control technologies, the plan 

shall contain the information specified in subsection (g)(3). 

(5) A port may submit terminal plans required under subsection (g)(1) on 

behalf of the terminals located at that port. 

(h) Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements. 

(1) Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Persons that Comply 

with Subsection (d)(1). 

(A) The Responsible Official shall provide the following reports to the 

Executive Officer: 

1. A vessel fleet plan, due to the Executive Officer by 

July 1, 2013, and an updated plan by July 1, 2019, which 

includes a listing of the vessels that would be affected by the 

requirements specified in subsection (d)(1) and the description 

of the ability of each vessel to use shore power. 

The vessel fleet plan shall list the vessels that are able to shut 

down the vessel’s auxiliary engines and use shore power, 

along with the related information as follows: 

a. Name of the vessel, Lloyd’s number for the vessel, and 

vessel category (container, passenger, or reefer); and 

b. The port(s) each vessel(s) is expected to visit.
A-20 

2. An annual statement of compliance pursuant to subsection 

(d)(1) and (d)(2). 

a. The initial annual statement of compliance is due to the 

Executive Officer by March 1, 2015. This statement is for 

the 2014 calendar year. Thereafter, the annual statement 

is due to the Executive Officer by March 1 of each year, 

certifying compliance with the requirements for the

previous calendar year. 

b. The annual statement of compliance shall include the 

following: 

i. A statement signed by the Responsible Official that the 

requirements specified in subsection (d)(1) or (d)(2) 

have been met. 

ii. Visit-related information for all vessels within a fleet that 

visited a California port. The list shall include the 

following information for each vessel: 

I. Current name of the vessel; 

II. Lloyd’s number for the vessel; 

III. Vessel type (cargo, passenger, reefer); and 

IV. Visits, by port and terminal, where the auxiliary 

engines were shut down; 

iii. The information submitted pursuant to paragraph 2.b.ii 

above shall be reported for the following periods: 

I. January 1 through March 31, inclusive; 

II. April 1 through June 30, inclusive; 

III. July 1 through September 30, inclusive; and 

IV. October 1 through December 31, inclusive. 

(B) Recordkeeping. 

1. The following records shall be kept at a central location by the 

vessel operator. This information shall be supplied to the 

Executive Officer within 30 days of a request from ARB 

inspectors or staff. 

a. A logbook that records, for each visit, the dates, times, and 

other information as specified below: 
A-21 

i. When the vessel initially tied to the berth and when the 

vessel cast-off the tie lines; 

ii. When the Department of Homeland Security released 

the vessel; 

iii. When the auxiliary engines were initially shut down and 

subsequently restarted; 

iv. Whether departure from the berth was delayed by the 

U.S. Coast Guard or other federal agency and 

identification of the agency that caused the delay; 

v. If an emergency event occurred, a description of that 

emergency event; 

vi. If the vessel could not use shore power as a result of 

the CAISO declaring a stage 3 emergency, and 

vii. If a vessel could not use shore power as a result of 

equipment failure aboard the vessel 

b. Copies of all current U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security Bureau of Customs and Border Protection “Vessel 

Entrance or Clearance Statement” documents (CBP Form 

1300, version 02/02), which is incorporated herein by 

reference, if the vessel operator or owner is claiming an 

exemption pursuant to subsection (e)(2)(A) or (e)(2)(B). 

2. All records required pursuant to this provision shall be retained 

for a minimum of five years. 

(2) Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Persons Opting to 

Comply with the Emissions Reduction Option in Subsection (d)(2). 

(A) The Responsible Official shall provide the following reports to the 

Executive Officer: 

1. A vessel fleet plan, due to the Executive Officer by the dates 

shown in Table 3 below: 
A-22 

Table 3. 

Compliance Option Initial Vessel 

Fleet Plan 

Subsequent Submittal 

Due Dates 

Grid-Based Shore Power: 

(d)(2)(A) July 1, 2013 July 1, 2019 

Alternative Control 

Technologies to Grid-Based 

Shore Power: (d)(2)(B) 

July 1, 2009 

July 1, 2011 

July 1, 2013 

July 1, 2015 

Combination of Grid-Based 

Shore Power and Alternative 

Control Technologies: 

(d)(2)(C) 

July 1, 2011 July 1, 2013 

July 1, 2019 

The vessel fleet plan shall include the following items: 

a. List of the vessels included in the company’s fleet; Lloyd’s 

number for each vessel, vessel category (cargo, 

passenger, reefer), average number of reefer containers 

carried by the vessel over the calendar year (container 

vessels only), and power requirement for each vessel 

(passenger and reefer vessels); and 

b. Identify the potential alternative control techniques that 

may be used to achieve the requirements specified in 

subsection (d)(2). For each control technique, specify the 

following: 

i. The vessels that would be affected by the technique; 

ii. The status of implementation of the alternative control 

technique; and 

iii. The basis used in determining the expected emission 

reduction, including submittal of any emission testing or 

other documentation. 

2. An annual statement of compliance. 

a. The initial annual statement of compliance is due to the 

Executive Officer by the dates in Table 4 below: 

 
A-23 

Table 4. 

Thereafter, the annual compliance statement is due to the 

Executive Officer by March 1 of each year, certifying 

compliance with the requirements for the previous year. 

b. The following items, applicable to the calendar year in 

question, should be included with the statement of 

compliance: 

i. A statement signed by the Responsible Official 

indicating that the NOx and PM emission reductions 

specified by (d)(2) have been achieved; 

ii. The calculated NOx and PM baseline and post-baseline 

emissions for each fleet, on a quarterly basis, as 

specified in (d)(2)(D). Include each vessel’s 

contribution to the fleet’s baseline and post-baseline 

emissions; and 

iii. Description of the technique(s) used, including 

alternative controls technology (or technologies), 

achievable emission reductions, and supporting 

documentation (e.g., source test results or verification 

documentation). For subsequent statements of 

compliance, the supporting documents can be 

referenced. 

(B) Recordkeeping. 

1. The following records shall be kept at a central location by the 

master and the fleet vessel operator. This information shall be 

Compliance Option Initial Submittal of Annual 

Statement of Compliance 

Grid-Based Shore Power: 

(d)(2)(A) March 1, 2015 

Alternative Control Technologies 

to Grid-Based Shore Power: 

(d)(2)(B) 

March 1, 2011 

Combination of Grid-Based Shore 

Power and Alternative Control 

technologies: (d)(2)(C) 

March 1, 2013 
A-24 

supplied to the Executive Officer within 30 days of a request 

from ARB staff. 

For each calendar year of vessel activity, a quarterly summary 

of emissions that demonstrates compliance with the applicable 

emission reduction (2010, 2012, 2014, or 2016), which 

includes the following: 

a. The fleet’s baseline and post-baseline levels for NOx and 

PM emissions; and 

b. Each vessel’s contribution to fleet’s baseline and postbaseline NOx and PM emissions, including the following 

information: 

i. Name of each vessel; 

ii. Lloyd’s number for each vessel; 

iii. Fuel type and average sulfur content of fuel for each 

vessel; 

iv. NOx and PM emissions for each vessel; 

v. Average hotelling time for each vessel; 

vi. Power requirements for each vessel while at berth; 

vii. For container vessels, the number of reefer 

containers imported and exported for each container

vessel; 

viii. Total visits to each California port made by the vessel; 

ix. Technology used to reduce emissions and associated 

control factor used; and 

x. Any equipment failure aboard a vessel that prevented 

the vessel from using the emissions reduction 

technology 

2. Records made pursuant to paragraph (2)(B) above shall be 

kept for a minimum of five years. 
A-25 

(3) Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Ports and Terminals. 

(A) Affected ports shall provide wharfinger information to the 

Executive Officer annually, beginning with the wharfinger 

information for calendar year 2010. 

1. This information shall be provided to the Executive Officer no 

later than April 1 of the following year. 

2. At a minimum, the wharfinger information shall include for 

each vessel visiting the port: 

a. Name of the vessel; 

b. Vessel type; 

c. Company operating the vessel; 

d. Lloyd’s number for each vessel; 

e. Berth used by the vessel; and 

f. Date(s) and time the vessel was initially tied to the berth 

and subsequently released from the berth. 

(B) The terminal operator shall keep the following records. These 

records shall be supplied to the Executive Officer within 30 days 

of a request from ARB staff: 

1. Electricity usage for shore power: 

a. Monthly utility billing statements that separately identify 

electricity supplied for shore power; 

b. Episodes of electrical service interruption by local utility 

company, as confirmed and documented by local utility 

company; and 

c. For distributed generation, monthly records that contain the 

following: 

i. Names of vessels serviced; 

ii. Location of vessels serviced, by berth; 

iii. Date and time of use; and 

iv. Power, in megawatts, supplied to the vessels. 
A-26 

2. Date, time, and description of equipment failure that affected 

the ability of vessels to turn off their auxiliary engines or use 

alternative control technologies to reduce emissions pursuant 

to (d)(2). 

3. Record of each vessel that did not operate its auxiliary 

engines while the vessel was docked at the terminal: 

a. Name of vessel; and 

b. Date and time each vessel was initially tied to the terminal. 

4. Records made pursuant to paragraph (3)(B) above shall be 

kept for five years. 

(4) Electronic submittals of records and other information required under 

this section may be approved by the Executive Officer upon request, 

provided such electronic submittals use digital signatures that meet the 

requirements specified in Government Code section 16.5. 

Notwithstanding the approved submittal of electronic records, the 

Executive Officer may request the submittal of a hard copy of any 

electronic submittal. 

 

(i) Violations. 

(1) Except as otherwise specified in this subsection, any person who is 

subject to this section and commits a violation of any provision, 

prohibition, limit, standard, criteria, or requirement in this section is 

subject to the penalties, injunctive relief, and other remedies specified 

in Health and Safety Code section 42400 et seq., other applicable 

sections in the Health and Safety Code; and other applicable 

provisions as provided under California law for each violation. Nothing 

in this section shall be construed to limit or otherwise affect any 

applicable penalties or other remedies available under federal law. 

(2) Except as otherwise specified in this subsection, any failure to meet 

any provision, prohibition, limit, standard, criteria, or requirement in this 

section, including but not limited to the applicable emission limits for 

supplied shore power and hours of engine operation limits, shall 

constitute a single, separate violation of this section for each hour that 

a person operates the auxiliary diesel engine until such provision, 

prohibition, limit, standard, criteria, or requirement has been met. 

(3) A violation of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this 

section shall constitute a single, separate violation of this section for 
A-27 

 each day that the applicable recordkeeping or reporting requirement 

has not been met. 

(j) Severability. 

 If any subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or 

portion of this regulation is, for any reason, held invalid, unconstitutional, or 

unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be 

deemed as a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and such 

holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the 

regulation. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 38560, 38560.5, 39600, 39601, 41511, 43013, 

and 43018, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 38560, 38560.5, 

39000, 39001, 39515, 39516, 41510, 41511, 43013, and 43018, Health and 

Safety Code; and Western Oil and Gas Ass’n v. Orange Country Air Pollution 

Control District, (1975) 14 Cal.3d 411, 121 Cal.Rptr. 249. 

A-28 

PROPOSED REGULATION ORDER 

AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL MEASURE FOR 

AUXILIARY DIESEL ENGINES OPERATED ON 

OCEAN-GOING VESSELS AT-BERTH IN A CALIFORNIA PORT

Adopt new section 93118.3, title 17, chapter 1, subchapter 7.5, California Code 

of Regulations (CCR), to read as follows: 

(Note: The entire text of section 93118.3 is new language.): 

Section 93118.3. Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Auxiliary Diesel 

Engines Operated on Ocean-Going Vessels At-Berth in a California Port. 

(a) Purpose. 

The purpose of this section is to reduce oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and diesel 

particulate matter (PM) emissions from the operation of auxiliary engines on 

container ships, passenger ships, and refrigerated cargo ships while these 

vessels are docked at berth at a California port. This section reduces emissions 

by limiting the time during which auxiliary diesel engines are operated on the 

regulated vessels while such vessels are docked at-berth in a California port, as 

well as by applying other requirements. This section implements provisions of 

the Goods Movement Emission Reduction Plan, adopted by the Air Resources 

Board (ARB) in April 2006, to reduce emissions and health risk from ports and 

the movement of goods in California. This section also helps achieve the goals 

specified in the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, established 

under California law by Assembly Bill 32 (Stats. 2006, ch. 488) and set forth in 

Health and Safety Code § 38500 et seq. 

(b) Applicability and General Exemptions. 

(1) Except as provided in this subsection (b), this section applies to any 

person who owns, operates, charters, rents, or leases any U.S. or 

foreign-flagged container ship, passenger ship, or refrigerated cargo 

ship that visits a California port. In addition, this section also applies to 

any person who owns or operates a port or terminal located at a port 

where container, passenger, or refrigerated cargo vessels visit. 

(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 
A-29 

 requirements of this section, including but not limited to, obtaining any 

necessary approvals, exemptions, or orders from the U.S. Coast 

Guard. 

 (3) The requirements of this section do not apply to: 

 (A) Ocean-going vessel voyages that are comprised 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” includes stopping and anchoring only to 

the extent such stopping and anchoring are required by the U.S. 

Coast Guard; rendered necessary by force majeure or distress; or 

made for the purpose of rendering assistance to persons, ships, 

or aircraft in danger or distress. This exemption does not apply to 

the passage of an ocean-going vessel that engages in any of the 

prejudicial activities specified in United Nations Convention on the 

Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) 1982, Article 19, subpart 2. Further, 

notwithstanding any Coast Guard mandated stops or stops due to 

force majeure or the rendering of assistance, this exemption does 

not apply to a vessel that was otherwise scheduled or intended to 

enter California internal or estuarine waters or call at a port, 

roadstead or terminal facility. 

 (B) Auxiliary engines on-board ocean-going vessels owned or 

operated by any branch of local, state, federal government, or by 

a foreign government, when such vessels are operated on 

government non-commercial service. However, such vessels are 

encouraged to act in a manner consistent, so far as is reasonable 

and practicable, with this section. 

 (C) Steamships while berthed at a California port. 

 

 (D) Auxiliary engines while such engines are operating primarily on 

liquefied natural gas or compressed natural gas. 

(c) Definitions.

For purposes of this section, the definitions in Health and Safety Code sections 

39010 through 39060 shall apply except as otherwise specified in this section: 

(1) “Alternative Control Technologies” means technologies, techniques, or 

measures that reduce the emissions of NOx and PM from an auxiliary 

diesel engine other than shutting down the engine. 
A-30 

(2) “Auxiliary Engine” means an engine on an ocean-going vessel 

designed primarily to provide power for uses other than propulsion, 

except that all diesel-electric engines shall be considered “auxiliary 

diesel engines” for purposes of this section. 

(3) “Baseline Fleet Emissions” means the total emissions from all vessels 

in a fleet during all berthing times in a calendar year or other specified 

time period. For purposes of calculating the baseline fleet emissions, 

the auxiliary engines on the vessels in the fleet shall be assumed to 

use marine diesel fuel while at berth. 

(4) “Berthing Time” means the time period that begins when the vessel is 

first tied to the berth and ends when the vessel is untied from the berth. 

(5) “California Ports” means: 

(A) The Port of Hueneme, the Port of Los Angeles (POLA) and Port 

of Long Beach (POLB), the Port of Oakland, the Port of San 

Diego, and the Port of San Francisco; 

(B) For purposes of this section, POLA and POLB are treated as one 

port. 

(6) “Container Vessel” means a self-propelled ocean-going vessel 

constructed or adapted primarily to carry uniform-sized ocean freight 

containers. 

(7) “Diesel Engine” means an internal combustion, compression-ignition 

(CI) engine with operating characteristics significantly similar to the 

theoretical diesel combustion cycle. The regulation of power by 

controlling fuel supply in lieu of a throttle is indicative of a compression 

ignition engine. 

(8) “Diesel-Electric Engine” means a diesel engine connected to a 

generator that is used as a source of electricity for propulsion or other 

uses. 

(9) “Diesel Particulate Matter” means the particles found in the exhaust of 

diesel engines, which may agglomerate and adsorb other species to 

form structures of complex physical and chemical properties. 

(10) “Distributed Generation” shall have the same meaning as that term is 

defined in title 17, CCR, section 94202. 
A-31 

(11) “Docked at the Berth” means the state of being tied to a berth. 

(12) “Emergency Event” means the period of time during which any of the 

following events occurs; the emergency event begins when such an 

event begins and ends when the event is over: 

(A) Any situation arising from a sudden and reasonably unforeseen 

event beyond the control of the master that threatens the safety of 

the vessel; 

(B) The utility serving the port states that electrical power will be 

temporarily unavailable as a result of equipment failure; or 

(C) The electrical system at the terminal cannot provide electrical 

power as a result of equipment failure; or 

(13) “Executive Officer” means the executive officer of the Air Resources 

Board (ARB), or his or her designee. 

(14) “Fleet” means all container, passenger, and refrigerated cargo (reefer) 

vessels, visiting a specific California port, which are owned or operated 

under the direct control of the same person. Direct control includes, 

but is not limited to, vessels that are operated under a contract, lease, 

or other arrangement with a third-party for the third-party to operate the 

vessel. For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to 

have separate fleets for each California port visited. For example, if a 

person owns or operates vessels that visit both the Port of Los Angeles 

and Port of Oakland, that person is deemed to have two fleets, one a 

“POLA-based fleet” and the other a “Port of Oakland-based fleet.” 

(15) “IMO” means the International Maritime Organization. 

(16) “Landlord Port” means a California port that leases the port’s real 

property to a person(s). 

(17) “Master” means the person who operates an ocean-going vessel or is 

otherwise in charge of the vessel’s operations. 

(18) “Ocean-Going Vessel” means a commercial, government, or military 

vessel meeting any one of the following criteria: 

(A) A vessel greater than or equal to 400 feet in length overall (LOA) 

as defined in 50 CFR § 679.2, as adopted June 19, 1996; 
A-32 

(B) A vessel greater than or equal to 10,000 gross tons (GT ITC) 

pursuant to the convention measurement (international system) 

as defined in 46 CFR § 69.51-.61, as adopted September 12, 

1989; or 

(C) A vessel propelled by a marine compression ignition engine with 

a per-cylinder displacement of greater than or equal to 30 liters. 

For the purposes of this section, “ocean-going vessel” will be 

used interchangeably with the term “vessel.” 

(19) “Operate” means steering or otherwise running the vessel or its 

functions while the vessel is underway, moored, anchored, or at berth. 

(20) “Operate an Auxiliary Diesel Engine” means running or idling an 

auxiliary diesel engine such that it is producing mechanical work or 

electricity or is otherwise consuming fuel. 

(21) “Own” means having all the incidents of ownership, including the legal 

title, of a vessel whether or not that person leads, rents, or pledges the 

vessel; having or being entitled to the possession of a vessel as the 

purchaser under a conditional sale contract; or being the mortgagor of 

a vessel. 

(22) “Oxides of Nitrogen” means compounds of nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2), and other oxides of nitrogen, which are typically created 

during combustion processes and are major contributors to smog 

formation and acid deposition. 

(23) “Particulate Matter” means any airborne finely divided material, except 

uncombined water, which exists as a liquid or solid at standard 

conditions (e.g., dust, smoke, mist, fumes, or smog). 

(24) “Passenger Vessel” means a self-propelled vessel constructed or 

adapted primarily to carry people. 

(25) “Person” includes all of the following: 

(A) Any person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business 

trust, corporation, limited liability company, or company; 

(B) Any state or local governmental agency or public district, or any 

officer or employee thereof; 
A-33 

(C) The United States or its agencies, to the extent authorized by 

federal law. 

(26) “Post-Baseline Fleet Emissions” means the total emissions from all 

vessels in a fleet after the application of alternative control 

technologies during all berthing times in a calendar year or other 

specified time period. For purposes of calculating the baseline fleet 

emissions, the auxiliary engines on the vessels in the fleet shall be 

assumed to use marine diesel fuel while at berth. 

(27) “Refrigerated Cargo (or Reefer) Vessel” means a self-propelled vessel 

constructed or adapted primarily to carry refrigerated cargo. Reefer 

vessels include vessels where the cargo may be stored in large 

refrigerated rooms within the vessel or vessels that carry exclusively 

refrigerated cargo containers. 

(28) “Responsible Official” means the individual(s) with the authority to 

certify that all vessels in a fleet comply with applicable requirements of 

this regulation. 

(29) “Shore power” refers to electrical power being provided by either the 

local utility or by distributed generation. 

(30) “Steamship” means a self-propelled vessel in which the primary 

propulsion and electrical power are provided by steam boilers. 

(31) “Synchronous Power Transfer” means the synchronized switchover in 

vessel-based power to shore-based power without a loss in power 

during such transfer. 

(32) “Terminal” means a facility consisting of wharves, piers, docks and 

other berthing locations and adjacent storage, which are used primarily 

for loading and unloading of cargo or material from vessels or the 

temporary storage of this cargo or material on-site. 

(33) “Terminal Operator” means a person that leases terminal property from 

a port for the purpose of loading and unloading of cargo or material 

from vessels or the temporary storage of this cargo or material on-site. 

(34) “Utility” shall have the same meaning and be used interchangeably 

with the term “Electric Utility” as defined in Public Resources Code 

section 28105. 

(35) “Verified Emission Control Strategy” means an emission control 

strategy that has been verified pursuant to the “Verification Procedure 
A-34 

for In-Use Strategies to Control Emissions from Diesel Engines” in title 

13, California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 2700, 

which is incorporated herein by reference. 

(36) “Visit” means the time period that begins when an ocean-going vessel 

initially ties to a berth (the beginning of the visit) and ends when it 

casts off the lines (the end of the visit) at a berth in a California port. 

Separate and sequential visits shall collectively be deemed a single 

visit when a vessel ties to two or more berths at the same California 

port and the time interval between leaving one berth and tying to 

another berth in the same port is less than two hours. 

(d) Vessel In-Use Operational Requirements. 

(1) Limits on Hours and Other Aspects of Operation for Auxiliary Diesel 

Engines on Container, Passenger, and Refrigerated Cargo (Reefer) 

Vessels.

(A) Except as provided in subsection (d)(2), beginning January 1, 

2014, no less than 50 percent of a fleet’s visits to a California port 

in a calendar quarter, rounded to the nearest whole visit, shall 

meet the following limits on the number of hours auxiliary diesel 

engines on such vessels may be operated at berth: 

1. Three hours total per visit, provided the visiting vessel uses 

a synchronous power transfer process to change from

vessel-based power to shore-based power; or 

2. Five hours total per visit, provided the visiting vessel does 

not use a synchronous power transfer process to change 

from vessel-based power to shore-based power. 

For example, if a person’s fleet makes 10 visits to a California port 

in a calendar quarter, the auxiliary diesel engines on vessels in at 

least 5 of those visits shall be operated no more than a combined 

3 or 5 hours total, depending on whether a synchronous power 

transfer is used. The 3- and 5-hour limit applies to the combined 

operating time for all auxiliary diesel engines used in a vessel 

visit, rather than on a per-engine basis. 

(B) Except as provided in subsection (d)(2), beginning January 1, 

2020, no less than 80 percent of a fleet’s visits to a California port 

in a calendar quarter, rounded to the nearest whole visit, shall 

meet the following limits on the number of hours auxiliary diesel 

engines on such vessels may be operated at berth: 
A-35 

1. Three hours total per visit, provided the visiting vessel uses 

a synchronous power transfer process to change from

vessel-based power to shore-based power; or 

2. Five hours total per visit, provided the visiting vessel does 

not use a synchronous power transfer process to change 

from vessel-based power to shore-based power. 

For example, if a person’s fleet makes 10 visits to a California port 

in a calendar quarter, the auxiliary diesel engines on vessels in at 

least 5 of those visits shall be operated no more than a combined 

3 or 5 hours total, depending on whether a synchronous power 

transfer is used. The 3- and 5-hour limit applies to the combined 

operating time for all auxiliary diesel engines used in a vessel 

visit, rather than on a per-engine basis. 

(C) Compliance with the requirements in subsection (d)(1)(A) and 

(d)(1)(B) shall be determined quarterly for the periods specified as 

follows: 

1. January 1 through March 31, inclusive; 

2. April 1 through June 30, inclusive; 

3. July 1 through September 30, inclusive; and 

4. October 1 through December 31, inclusive. 

(D) Except as otherwise specified in subsection (d)(1)(F), the 

requirements of subsection (d)(1)(A) and (d)(1)(B) do not apply to: 

1. A fleet comprised solely of container or reefer vesselsthat 

visits a California port fewer than 25 times total in a calendar 

year; and 

2. A fleet comprised solely of passenger vessels that visits a 

California port fewer than 5 times total in a calendar year. 

(E) No person shall sell, supply, offer to supply, or purchase electrical 

power for use on a vessel during a visit in lieu of using the onboard auxiliary diesel engines, unless such electrical power is 

either supplied by the local utility or is otherwise generated by 

equipment that meet the following emission standards: 
A-36 

1. NOx emissions no greater than 0.03 gram per kilowatt-hour 

(g/kW-hr); 

2. PM emissions equivalent to the combustion of natural gas 

with a fuel sulfur content of no more than one grain per 100 

standard cubic foot; 

3. CO2 emissions shall be no greater than 500 g/kW-hr; and 

4. Ammonia emissions no greater than five parts per million on 

a dry volume basis (ppmdv), if selective catalytic reduction is 

used. 

(F) Notwithstanding the requirements specified in subsection 

(d)(1)(A) and (d)(1)(B), any ocean-going vessel equipped to 

receive shore power that visits a berth equipped to provide 

compatible shore power shall utilize the shore power during every 

visit to that berth. This requirement shall not apply under the 

following circumstances: 

1. The master of the vessel reasonably and actually determines 

that an emergency event, as defined in subsection 

(c)(12)(A), is in effect and the use of shore power during the 

emergency event would endanger the vessel’s safety. 

Shore power shall be used for the remainder of the visit once 

the master determines that the emergency event no longer 

exists; 

2. An emergency event, as defined in subsection (c)(12)(B) or 

(c)(12)(C), is in effect. Shore power shall be used for the 

remainder of the visit once the emergency event is no longer 

in effect; or 

3. The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) has 

declared a Stage 3 emergency and the utility providing 

electrical power to the port is requesting the terminal where 

the vessel is located to reduce the use of grid-based 

electrical power. Shore power shall be used for the 

remainder of the visit once CAISO declares the Stage 3 

emergency is over. 

(2) Emissions Reduction Option. 

The purpose of this provision is to allow any person the option of 

complying with the requirements of this subsection (d)(2) in lieu of 

meeting the requirements of subsection (d)(1). 
A-37 

Requirements. 

(A) For fleets visiting terminals that are providing electrical power 

from the utility’s electrical grid, the owner or operator of the fleets 

shall comply with the following schedule: 

1. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2014, and each 

subsequent quarter through December 31, 2019, inclusive, 

the NOx and PM emissions at berth from the fleet’s auxiliary 

engines must be reduced by 50 percent from the baseline 

fleet emissions. 

2. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2020, and each 

subsequent quarter thereafter, the NOx and PM emissions at 

berth from the fleet’s auxiliary engines must be reduced by 

80 percent from the baseline fleet emissions. 

(B) For fleets visiting terminals that are providing electrical power 

from sources that are not part of an utility’s electrical grid, or 

alternative control technologies are used to reduce the emissions 

of the fleet, the owner or operator of the fleet shall comply with the 

following schedule: 

1. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2010, and each 

subsequent quarter through December 31, 2011, inclusive, 

the NOx and PM emissions at berth from the fleet’s auxiliary 

engines must be reduced by 20 percent from the baseline 

fleet emissions. 

2. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2012, and each 

subsequent quarter through December 31, 2013, inclusive, 

the NOx and PM emissions at berth from the fleet’s auxiliary 

engines must be reduced by 40 percent from the baseline 

fleet emissions. 

3. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2014, and each 

subsequent quarter through December 31, 2015, inclusive, 

the NOx and PM emissions at berth from the fleet’s auxiliary 

engines must be reduced by 60 percent from the baseline 

fleet emissions. 

4. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2016, and each 

subsequent quarter thereafter, the NOx and PM emissions 

from the fleet’s auxiliary engines must be reduced by 80 

percent from the baseline fleet emissions. 
A-38 

(C) For fleets visiting terminals that are using a combination of 

electrical power from the utility grid and electrical power from 

sources that are not part of an utility’s electrical grid, or alternative 

control technologies, the following schedule applies: 

1. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2012, and each 

subsequent quarter through December 31, 2013, inclusive, 

the NOx and PM emissions at berth from the fleet’s auxiliary 

engines must be reduced by 20 percent from the baseline 

fleet emissions. 

2. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2014, and each 

subsequent quarter through December 31, 2019, inclusive, 

the NOx and PM emissions from the fleet’s auxiliary engines 

must be reduced by 50 percent from the baseline fleet 

emissions. 

3. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2020, and each 

subsequent quarter thereafter, the NOx and PM emissions 

from the fleet’s auxiliary engines must be reduced by 80 

percent from the baseline fleet emissions. 

(D) Compliance with the requirements of subsection (d)(2)(A), 

(d)(2)(B), and (d)(2)(C) shall be determined quarterly for the 

periods specified as follows: 

1. January 1 through March 31, inclusive; 

2. April 1 through June 30, inclusive; 

3. July 1 through September 30, inclusive; and 

4. October 1 through December 31, inclusive. 

(E) No person shall sell, supply, offer to supply, or purchase electrical 

power for use on a vessel during a visit in lieu of using the onboard auxiliary diesel engines, unless such electrical power is 

either be supplied by the local utility or is otherwise generated by 

equipment that meet the following emission: 

1. NOx Emissions. 

a. Up to and including December 31, 2013, the NOx 

emissions shall be no greater than 2 g/kW-hr at any

time; and 
A-39 

b. Beginning January 1, 2014, the NOx emissions 

shall be no greater than 0.2 g/kW-hr at any time; 

2. PM emissions shall be no greater than the PM emissions 

from combustion of natural gas with a fuel sulfur content of 

no more than one grain per 100 standard cubic foot;

3. CO2 emissions shall be no greater than 500 g/kW-hr; and 

4. Ammonia emissions shall be no greater than five ppmdv if 

selective catalytic reduction is used. 

(e) Exemptions to the Three-Hour or Five-Hour Limited Auxiliary Engine 

Operation Requirement in Subsection (d)(1)(A)(1), (d)(1)(A)(2), (d)(1)(B)(1) 

and (d)(1)(B)(2). 

(1) Emergency Event. 

All of the following requirements apply to claimed exemptions based on 

emergency events: 

(A) If the master of the vessel reasonably and actually determines 

that an emergency event, as defined subsection (c)(12), occurs 

during the vessel’s visit to a California port, the master of the 

vessel may operate the vessel’s auxiliary engines during the 

emergency event; 

(B) The master shall not operate the vessel’s auxiliary engines for 

more than one hour beyond the time when the master receives 

notification that the emergency event is over, determines that the 

emergency event is over, or should have known the emergency 

event is over; and 

(C) The provisions of paragraph (B) above notwithstanding, the 

master may continue to operate the auxiliary engines for no more 

than five hours if the master receives notification that the 

emergency event is over, determines that the emergency event is 

over, or should have known the emergency event is over and the 

vessel is scheduled to leave port within five hours. 

(2) Delays Caused By U.S. Coast Guard or Department of Homeland 

Security Inspections. 
A-40 

The Executive Officer may extend the three-hour/five-hour operational 

requirement in subsection (d)(1)(A) and (d)(1)(B) if the following criteria 

are met: 

(A) The initial inspection and clearance of the vessel by the 

Department of Homeland Security exceeds one hour. The time 

extension granted shall be commensurate with the excess time 

necessary for inspection and clearance; or 

(B) After the auxiliary engines have been put back into service 

pending departure from the berth, the scheduled departure of the 

vessel has been delayed by the United States (U.S.) Coast Guard 

or the Department of Homeland Security. 

(f) Calculations for Emissions Reduction Option in Subsection (d)(2). 

(1) For the purposes of subsection (d)(2)(A), (d)(2)(B), and (d)(2)(C), the 

percent emission reduction shall be calculated as follows: 

Percent Reduction = (BFE – PBFE) / BFE 

Where, 

The baseline fleet and post-baseline fleet emissions are calculated as 

follows: 

(A) Baseline Fleet Emissions (BFE). 

The baseline fleet emissions of NOx and PM shall be calculated 

using the following formula: 

Baseline Fleet Emissions = ∑ (emission rate x average berthing 

time x power requirement x visits) 

Where: 

“Emission rate” for each auxiliary engine is determined pursuant 

to subsection (f)(2); 

“Average berthing time” for each vessel is determined for the 

applicable period specified in subsection (d)(2)(D);

“Power requirements” means the electrical power requirement for 

each vessel as determined pursuant to subsection (f)(3);
A-41 

“Visits” means the total number of visits by the vessel during the 

applicable period specified in subsection (d)(2)(D); and 

“∑” means the summation over the entire fleet subject to the 

emission reduction option. 

(B) Post-Baseline Fleet Emissions (PBFE). 

The post-baseline fleet emissions of NOx and PM shall be 

calculated using the following formula: 

Post-Baseline Fleet Emissions = ∑ (emission rate x average 

berthing time x power requirement x visits x control factor) 

Where: 

“Emission rate” for each auxiliary engine is determined pursuant 

to subsection (f)(2); 

“Average berthing time” for each vessel is determined for the 

applicable period specified in subsection (d)(2)(D);

“Power requirements” means the electrical power requirement for 

each vessel as determined pursuant to subsection (f)(3);

“Visits” means the total number of visits by the vessel during the 

applicable period specified in subsection (d)(2)(D); 

“Control factor” means the applicable control factor specified in 

subsection (f)(4); and 

“∑” means the summation over the entire fleet subject to the 

emission reduction option. 

(2) A person complying with the requirements of subsection (d)(2) may 

choose any of the following emissions rates for use in the calculations 

specified in subsection (f)(1)(A) and (f)(1)(B): 

(A) Results from emission measurements for similar auxiliary diesel 

engines that are used to satisfy a marine engine standard, 

including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emission 

standards for marine engines (40 CFR Part 94), and the 

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from 
A-42 

Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 

73/78), both of which are incorporated herein by reference; 

(B) Emission measurements approved by the Executive Officer and 

using the test methods specified in subsection (f)(4)(B)(3); or 

(C) In lieu of test data measured pursuant to paragraph (A) or (B) 

above, the following emission rates may be used as default 

values: 

1. 13.9 g/kW-hr for NOx. 

2. 0.38 g/kW-hr for PM if 0.11 to 0.5 percent sulfur marine gas 

oil is used as a fuel. 

3. 0.25 g/kW-hr for PM if 0.10 or less sulfur content marine gas 

oil is used as a fuel. 

(3) Power Requirements. 

(A) The following values in Table 1 may be used as default values for 

power requirements: 

Table 1. 

 TEU = twenty-foot equivalent unit. 

kW = kilowatt 

Ship Category Ship Size / Type Default Power 

Requirement (kW) 

Container Vessel <1000 TEU 1,000 

 1,000-1,999 TEU 1,300 

 2,000-2,999 TEU 1,600 

 3,000-3,999 TEU 1,900 

 4,000-4,999 TEU 2,200 

 5,000-5,999 TEU 2,300 

 6,000-6,999 TEU 2,500 

 7,000-7,999 TEU 2,900 

 8,000-9,999 TEU 3,300 

 10,000-12,000 TEU 3,700 

Passenger Vessel No Default Value – 

Use Actual Load 

Reefer Break Bulk 1,300 

 Fully Containerized 3,300 
A-43 

(B) In lieu of the default values above, the fleet operator may, with 

adequate supporting documentation, use the following: 

1. The actual shore power usage, on a monthly basis, rounded 

to the nearest whole kW-hrs, of the vessels in the fleet 

utilizing shore power, or 

2. The actual on-board power usage, on a monthly basis, 

rounded to the nearest whole kW-hrs, of the vessels in the 

fleet utilizing alternative control technologies. 

(4) Control Factors. 

(A) The emissions from vessels using grid power in lieu of the 

vessel’s auxiliary engines when the vessels are at berth are 

presumed to be reduced by 90 percent. 

(B) No control efficiencies for alternative control technologies shall be 

used to comply with the requirements of this provision unless the 

control efficiencies are calculated or measured as follows: 

1. The control efficiencies shall be based on an emission test 

protocol that is approved by the Executive Officer prior to 

conducting the emission measurements; 

2. The results of the emission measurements conducted 

pursuant to paragraph 1 above are approved by the 

Executive Officer; and 

3. Emission measurements are conducted using the following 

test methods: 

a. NOx and CO2 shall be measured using California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) Test Method 100, dated July 

1997, which is incorporated herein by reference, or

equivalent district-approved test method; 

b. Diesel PM shall be measured using ISO 8178 Test 

Procedures: ISO 8178-1: 1996(E) (“ISO 8178 Part 1”); 

ISO 8178-2:1996(E) (“ISO 8178 Part 2”); and ISO 

8178-4: 1996(E) (“ISO 8178 Part 4”), all of which are 

incorporated herein by reference; and

c. Ammonia slip shall be measured using the Bay Area Air 

Quality Management District Source Test Procedure 

ST-1B, Ammonia Integrated Sampling, dated 
A-44 

January 1982, which is incorporated herein by 

reference, or other equivalent district approved test 

method.

d. The sulfur content of fuels shall be determined pursuant 

to International Standard ISO 8754 (as adopted in 

2003), which is incorporated herein by reference.

(C) Results from emission measurements from a verified emission 

control strategy may be used in conjunction with engine emission 

information. 

(D) The Executive Officer may request periodic emission testing or 

other types of monitoring to verify the proper operation of 

alternative control technologies or to verify the emission rate of an 

auxiliary engine. 

1. At a minimum, emission control technologies shall be tested 

as follows and the results of such testing provided to the 

Executive Officer within 30 days of the testing: 

a. Shore-based systems shall be tested annually to 

demonstrate the overall percentage of emission 

reduction being achieved. 

b. Catalyst based air pollution control systems installed on 

vessels shall be tested after every 1,000 hours of 

operation to determine the overall percentage of 

emission reduction being achieved. 

c. If Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) is used as a 

control technology, the emissions of ammonia shall also 

be measured at the same time the NOx emissions are 

being measured. 

2. The Executive Officer may modify the testing frequency as 

he/she deems appropriate. 

(g) Terminal Plan Requirements. 

(1) A terminal that receives more than 50 vessel visits in 2008 shall submit 

a plan for the Executive Officer’s approval that discusses how the 

terminal will accommodate the vessels that will visit the terminal who 

are subject to subsection (d)(1) and (d)(2). The terminal shall submit 

the plan and subsequent updates to the plan according to the schedule 

below (Table 2). The plan updates shall address any contingencies 
A-45 

that may be necessary for the vessels to meet the requirements of 

subsection (d)(1)and (d)(2) by the applicable dates. 

Table 2. 

Vessel Compliance Option Initial Terminal 

Plan Due Date 

Subsequent Terminal 

Plan Updates 

Grid-Based Shore Power: 

(d)(1) and (d)(2)(A) July 1, 2009 July 1, 2013 July 1, 2019 

Alternative Control 

Technologies to Grid-Based 

Shore Power: (d)(2)(B) 

July 1, 2009 

July 1, 2011 

July 1, 2013 

July 1, 2015 

Combination of Grid-Based 

Shore Power and Alternative 

Control Technologies: 

(d)(2)(C) 

July 1, 2009 

July 1, 2011 

July 1, 2013 

July 1, 2015 

July 1, 2019 

(2) Plan Requirements for Grid-Based Shore Power. 

(A) Specify the schedule for implementing infrastructure 

modifications, including the following: 

1. Utility infrastructure improvements, if any, outside the port 

boundary; 

2. Improvements to port infrastructure; and 

3. Major infrastructure improvements to terminal. 

(B) Identification of existing berths to be modified or new berths to be 

constructed that will satisfy the requirements of subsection (d)(1). 

(3) Plan Requirements for Alternative Control Technologies. 

(A) Description of the approach that will be used to reduce in-berth 

vessel emissions, including whether the approach is a vesselbased approach or shore-based approach; 

(B) Identification and description of equipment; 

(C) Berth(s) where the equipment will be used; 
A-46 

(D) Specific vessels affected by the technology; and 

(E) Estimate of the expected reductions in NOx and PM emissions 

from vessels using the technology, including documentation 

supporting the anticipated reductions. 

(4) Plan Requirements for a Combination of Grid-Based Shore Power and 

Alternative Control Technologies. 

(A) Identification of which berths will implement grid-based shore 

power and which berths will implement alternative control 

technologies 

(B) For berths implementing shore-based grid power, the plan must 

contain the information specified in subsection (g)(2). 

(C) For berths implementing alternative control technologies, the plan 

shall contain the information specified in subsection (g)(3). 

(5) A port may submit terminal plans required under subsection (g)(1) on 

behalf of the terminals located at that port. 

(h) Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements. 

(1) Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Persons that Comply 

with Subsection (d)(1). 

(A) The Responsible Official shall provide the following reports to the 

Executive Officer: 

1. A vessel fleet plan, due to the Executive Officer by 

July 1, 2013, and an updated plan by July 1, 2019, which 

includes a listing of the vessels that would be affected by the 

requirements specified in subsection (d)(1) and the

description of the ability of each vessel to use shore power. 

The vessel fleet plan shall list the vessels that are able to 

shut down the vessel’s auxiliary engines and use shore 

power, along with the related information as follows: 

a. Name of the vessel, Lloyd’s number for the vessel, and 

vessel category (container, passenger, or reefer); and 

b. The port(s) each vessel(s) is expected to visit.
A-47 

2. An annual statement of compliance pursuant to subsection 

(d)(1) and (d)(2). 

a. The initial annual statement of compliance is due to the 

Executive Officer by March 1, 2015. This statement is 

for the 2014 calendar year. Thereafter, the annual

statement is due to the Executive Officer by March 1 of 

each year, certifying compliance with the requirements 

for the previous calendar year. 

b. The annual statement of compliance shall include the 

following: 

i. A statement signed by the Responsible Official 

that the requirements specified in subsection 

(d)(1) or (d)(2) have been met. 

ii. Visit-related information for all vessels within a 

fleet that visited a California port. The list shall 

include the following information for each vessel: 

I. Current name of the vessel; 

II. Lloyd’s number for the vessel; 

III. Vessel type (cargo, passenger, reefer); and 

IV. Visits, by port and terminal, where the auxiliary 

engines were shut down; 

iii. The information submitted pursuant to paragraph 

2.b.ii above shall be reported for the following 

periods: 

I. January 1 through March 31, inclusive; 

II. April 1 through June 30, inclusive; 

III. July 1 through September 30, inclusive; and 

IV. October 1 through December 31, inclusive. 

(B) Recordkeeping. 

1. The following records shall be kept at a central location by 

the vessel operator. This information shall be supplied to the 

Executive Officer within 30 days of a request from ARB 

inspectors or staff. 

a. A logbook that records, for each visit, the dates, times, 

and other information as specified below: 
A-48 

i. When the vessel initially tied to the berth and 

when the vessel cast-off the tie lines; 

ii. When the Department of Homeland Security 

released the vessel; 

iii. When the auxiliary engines were initially shut

down and subsequently restarted; 

iv. Whether departure from the berth was delayed by

the U.S. Coast Guard or other federal agency and 

identification of the agency that caused the delay; 

v. If an emergency event occurred, a description of

that emergency event; 

vi. If the vessel could not use shore power as a result 

of the CAISO declaring a stage 3 emergency, and 

vii. If a vessel could not use shore power as a result 

of equipment failure aboard the vessel. 

b. Copies of all current U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security Bureau of Customs and Border Protection 

“Vessel Entrance or Clearance Statement” documents 

(CBP Form 1300, version 02/02), which is incorporated 

herein by reference, if the vessel operator or owner is 

claiming an exemption pursuant to subsection (e)(2)(A) 

or (e)(2)(B). 

2. All records required pursuant to this provision shall be 

retained for a minimum of five years. 

(2) Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Persons Opting to 

Comply with the Emissions Reduction Option in Subsection (d)(2). 

(A) The Responsible Official shall provide the following reports to the 

Executive Officer: 

1. A vessel fleet plan, due to the Executive Officer by the dates 

shown in Table 3 below: 
A-49 

Table 3. 

Compliance Option Initial Vessel 

Fleet Plan 

Subsequent Submittal 

Due Dates 

Grid-Based Shore Power: 

(d)(2)(A) July 1, 2013 July 1, 2019 

Alternative Control 

Technologies to Grid-Based 

Shore Power: (d)(2)(B) 

July 1, 2009 

July 1, 2011 

July 1, 2013 

July 1, 2015 

Combination of Grid-Based 

Shore Power and Alternative 

Control Technologies: 

(d)(2)(C) 

July 1, 2011 July 1, 2013 

July 1, 2019 

The vessel fleet plan shall include the following items: 

a. List of the vessels included in the company’s fleet; 

Lloyd’s number for each vessel, vessel category (cargo, 

passenger, reefer), average number of reefer 

containers carried by the vessel over the calendar year 

(container vessels only), and power requirement for

each vessel (passenger and reefer vessels); and 

b. Identify the potential alternative control techniques that 

may be used to achieve the requirements specified in 

subsection (d)(2). For each control technique, specify 

the following: 

i. The vessels that would be affected by the 

technique; 

ii. The status of implementation of the alternative

control technique; and 

iii. The basis used in determining the expected 

emission reduction, including submittal of any 

emission testing or other documentation. 

2. An annual statement of compliance. 

a. The initial annual statement of compliance is due to the 

Executive Officer by the dates in Table 4 below: 

 
A-50 

Table 4. 

Thereafter, the annual compliance statement is due to 

the Executive Officer by March 1 of each year, 

certifying compliance with the requirements for the

previous year. 

b. The following items, applicable to the calendar year in 

question, should be included with the statement of 

compliance: 

i. A statement signed by the Responsible Official 

indicating that the NOx and PM emission 

reductions specified by (d)(2) have been achieved; 

ii. The calculated NOx and PM baseline and postbaseline emissions for each fleet, on a quarterly 

basis, as specified in (d)(2)(D). Include each 

vessel’s contribution to the fleet’s baseline and 

post-baseline emissions; and 

iii. Description of the technique(s) used, including 

alternative controls technology (or technologies), 

achievable emission reductions, and supporting 

documentation (e.g., source test results or 

verification documentation). For subsequent 

statements of compliance, the supporting 

documents can be referenced. 

(B) Recordkeeping. 

1. The following records shall be kept at a central location by 

the master and the fleet vessel operator. This information 

Compliance Option Initial Submittal of Annual 

Statement of Compliance 

Grid-Based Shore Power: 

(d)(2)(A) March 1, 2015 

Alternative Control Technologies 

to Grid-Based Shore Power: 

(d)(2)(B) 

March 1, 2011 

Combination of Grid-Based Shore 

Power and Alternative Control 

technologies: (d)(2)(C) 

March 1, 2013 
A-51 

shall be supplied to the Executive Officer within 30 days of a 

request from ARB staff. 

For each calendar year of vessel activity, a quarterly 

summary of emissions that demonstrates compliance with 

the applicable emission reduction (2010, 2012, 2014, or 

2016), which includes the following: 

a. The fleet’s baseline and post-baseline levels for NOx 

and PM emissions; and 

b. Each vessel’s contribution to fleet’s baseline and postbaseline NOx and PM emissions, including the 

following information: 

i. Name of each vessel; 

ii. Lloyd’s number for each vessel; 

iii. Fuel type and average sulfur content of fuel for 

each vessel; 

iv. NOx and PM emissions for each vessel; 

v. Average hotelling time for each vessel; 

vi. Power requirements for each vessel while at berth; 

vii. For container vessels, the number of reefer 

containers imported and exported for each 

container vessel; 

viii. Total visits to each California port made by the 

vessel; 

ix. Technology used to reduce emissions and 

associated control factor used, and 

x. Any equipment failure aboard a vessel that 

prevented the vessel from using the emissions 

reduction technology 

2. Records made pursuant to paragraph (2)(B) above shall be 

kept for a minimum of five years. 
A-52 

(3) Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Ports and Terminals. 

(A) Affected ports shall provide wharfinger information to the 

Executive Officer annually, beginning with the wharfinger 

information for calendar year 2010. 

1. This information shall be provided to the Executive Officer no 

later than April 1 of the following year. 

2. At a minimum, the wharfinger information shall include for 

each vessel visiting the port: 

a. Name of the vessel; 

b. Vessel type; 

c. Company operating the vessel; 

d. Lloyd’s number for each vessel; 

e. Berth used by the vessel; and 

f. Date(s) and time the vessel was initially tied to the berth 

and subsequently released from the berth. 

(B) The terminal operator shall keep the following records. These 

records shall be supplied to the Executive Officer within 30 days 

of a request from ARB staff: 

1. Electricity usage for shore power: 

a. Monthly utility billing statements that separately identify 

electricity supplied for shore power; 

b. Episodes of electrical service interruption by local utility 

company, as confirmed and documented by local utility 

company; and 

c. For distributed generation, monthly records that contain 

the following: 

i. Names of vessels serviced; 

ii. Location of vessels serviced, by berth; 

iii. Date and time of use; and 

iv. Power, in megawatts, supplied to the vessels. 
A-53 

2. Date, time, and description of equipment failure that affected 

the ability of vessels to turn off their auxiliary engines or use 

alternative control technologies to reduce emissions 

pursuant to (d)(2).; 

3. Record of each vessel that did not operate its auxiliary 

engines while the vessel was docked at the terminal: 

a. Name of vessel; and 

b. Date and time each vessel was initially tied to the 

terminal. 

4. Records made pursuant to paragraph (3)(B) above shall be 

kept for five years. 

(4) Electronic submittals of records and other information required under 

this section may be approved by the Executive Officer upon request, 

provided such electronic submittals use digital signatures that meet the 

requirements specified in Government Code section 16.5. 

Notwithstanding the approved submittal of electronic records, the 

Executive Officer may request the submittal of a hard copy of any 

electronic submittal. 

 

(i) Violations. 

(1) Except as otherwise specified in this subsection, any person who is 

subject to this section and commits a violation of any provision, 

prohibition, limit, standard, criteria, or requirement in this section is 

subject to the penalties, injunctive relief, and other remedies specified 

in Health and Safety Code section 42400 et seq., other applicable 

sections in the Health and Safety Code; and other applicable 

provisions as provided under California law for each violation. Nothing 

in this section shall be construed to limit or otherwise affect any 

applicable penalties or other remedies available under federal law. 

(2) Except as otherwise specified in this subsection, any failure to meet 

any provision, prohibition, limit, standard, criteria, or requirement in this 

section, including but not limited to the applicable emission limits for 

supplied shore power and hours of engine operation limits, shall 

constitute a single, separate violation of this section for each hour that 

a person operates the auxiliary diesel engine until such provision, 

prohibition, limit, standard, criteria, or requirement has been met. 

(3) A violation of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this 

section shall constitute a single, separate violation of this section for 
A-54 

each day that the applicable recordkeeping or reporting requirement 

has not been met. 

(j) Severability. 

 If any subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or 

portion of this regulation is, for any reason, held invalid, unconstitutional, or 

unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be 

deemed as a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and such 

holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the 

regulation. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601, 39650, 39658, 39659, 39666 and 

41511, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 39650, 39658, 39659, 

39666, 41510, and 41511, Health and Safety Code.