Good morning. My name is Ryan Wiggins of Communities for Clean Ports, an organization based in Southern California and a member of the Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports. For the past several years the alternative-fuel component of the Clean Trucks Program, a commitment to replace 50% of the drayage fleet with alternative-fueled trucks, has been a top priority of the approximately 40 local and regional environmental, public health, and labor organizations in the Coalition as well as the general public. We have worked towards this goal because these trucks do not produce toxic diesel PM, produce lower levels of NOx emissions, and emit at a minimum 21% fewer climate changing gases. The proposal the Board is considering will waste taxpayer money on diesel trucks that do not need to be subsidized and sabotage the public’s desire for a clean alternative to diesel fuel.

The Ports do not need the $98 million to replace old diesel trucks with new diesel trucks - they need it for alternative-fueled trucks. In the last year over 2,000 2007 compliant diesel trucks that service the Ports have received absolutely no subsidies of any kind. Currently no container fees are charged on privately funded diesel trucks, and both Ports estimate that if no action is taken to incentivize alt-fuel by the next truck ban in January the truck fleet will be almost entirely made up of unsubsidized 2007 diesels and will be fully compliant with CARB’s statewide port regulation. Currently the container fees of both Ports incentivize alt-fuel trucks and place the responsibility of subsidizing those trucks squarely on the shoulders of the beneficial cargo owners where it rightfully belongs. As a result, applications for LNG trucks are being submitted at a rapid pace and both Ports are beginning to award grants with priority focus on those that already achieve 2010 emissions standards. If the Ports eliminate their fees on port-administered bond funded trucks to utilize Prop 1B money or CARB redirects this money to AQMD the taxpayers will pay for diesel trucks that would be available for port service anyways.

Furthermore, the Board Meeting Notice cites a lack of applications for bond funding despite the impending CARB port regulation and maintains that this is because of the gate fees of the Ports; however, it fails to recognize the role of the scrapping provision in the low level of applications. It has been extremely difficult for the Ports to locate the older trucks to scrap as most have much higher resale value on the open market than the $5,000 scrap payment offered by the Ports.

Finally, the key to incentivizing alt-fuel is reducing the marginal cost of an alt-fuel truck below that of a diesel truck and the proposal to divert the money to AQMD will make diesel trucks significantly cheaper than the available LNG trucks.

The Ports have frequently reiterated in public their desire and the need to use Prop 1B funds to incentivize alt-fuel trucks. There is overwhelming support for alt-fuel trucks in the public and among the organizations that have fought for the Clean Trucks Program. In this, the most critical year for deploying a significant number of alt-fuel trucks we ask that the Board work with the Ports, AQMD, and our organizations to incentivize alt-fuel. This money could incentivize almost 1,000 alt-fuel trucks rather than subsidize diesel trucks when there is no need. Thank you.