The U.S. Coast Guard has announced that it will not enforce a new regulation from the California Air Resources Board, citing safety concerns.
The requirement of installing diesel particulate filters linked to fires is opposed by the Coast Guard and business organizations. A lawsuit has been filed by seventeen states against the Environmental Protection Agency for granting an exemption solely to California to implement its own air standards, which have a significant impact on the rest of the country due to its market size.
CARB is still awaiting authorization for a waiver from the EPA under the Clean Air Act before implementing the DTF rule. DPFs effectively capture almost all the soot and other particulate matter emitted by diesel engines. These filters rely on a process called DPF “regeneration” which involves running the engine at high speeds and temperatures to ignite and clear out the accumulated material. Unlike regular combustion, this regeneration process produces carbon dioxide, water vapor, and significantly lower levels of soot. While DPF filters do help reduce immediate particulate pollution, they have been associated with various fire incidents, including a 3,600-acre fire in Washington state, which raises concerns about their overall effectiveness.
Rear Admiral Andrew M. Sugimoto, the commander of the U.S. Coast Guard’s Eleventh District spanning from the California-Oregon border down to Peru, expressed his concerns about the upcoming DTF requirement in a letter to CARB. He highlighted several issues, including the potential fire safety risks associated with DPFs, the feasibility and stability concerns, as well as the potential safety risks related to DPF operating temperatures and the fire load of vessels due to different hull materials.
According to Sugimoto, the acceptance of DPS verified by CARB may not be guaranteed by the Coast Guard for installation on inspected commercial vessels. It is important to note that Coast Guard inspectors do not conduct emissions tests on vessels operating in U.S. waters to assess the performance of DPF systems. As a result, the Coast Guard will not enforce California’s CHC regulation.
The rule is also opposed by the American Waterways Operators.
According to Jennifer Carpenter, the President and CEO of AWO, our industry is able to transport over 665 million tons of cargo annually, emitting 43 percent less greenhouse gases compared to rail, and a staggering 832 percent less compared to trucks. In a letter addressed to California Governor Gavin Newsom, Carpenter expressed concern over CARB’s intention to enforce the CHC rule deadlines without EPA authorization. She believes that this decision should be reconsidered not only for legal reasons, but also to ensure the safety of mariners, protect the environment, and maintain the efficiency of the California supply chain.
According to AWO, the cost of retrofitting each tugboat or commercial harbor craft to meet the state’s deadline in ten months is $5 million per boat. However, many operators do not have the necessary funds to cover this expense. Additionally, due to the limited availability of drydocks, it would be physically impossible to complete the retrofitting on time.
CARB faces mounting pressure from businesses and other states who argue that the state’s exceptional influence in environmental standards, granted by the federal government, is unjust. A coalition of 17 states currently suing the EPA claims that California’s unique status violates the principle of equal sovereignty among states and essentially grants the state the power to dictate national environmental policies. In 1970, California was granted permission to establish its own air standards in response to the severe smog and pollution issues prevalent in the state at that time.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District highlights that although there is still a need to reduce smog levels in Southern California by 100 tons per day in order to meet the EPA’s 1997 ozone standards, it emphasizes that two-thirds of the necessary reductions must be carried out at the federal level for trains, ships, and aircraft. This is because the district lacks the authority to regulate these sources on its own.
Read More:
- Supreme Court Ruling Poses Challenges for Donald Trump’s Trial
- Aileen Cannon Secures Second Legal Victory Against Donald Trump within 24 Hours