![]() ![]() The plan is not there yet.”Īnd industry groups and truckers expressed big concerns about the price tag.Ī fleet of short-haul, heavy-duty trucks capable of servicing the ports’ needs with zero tailpipe emissions does not exist. “At the end of the day, we have to ask if the words on paper will make the air safe to breathe. “The plan relies too heavily on yet-to-be-developed state regulations, millions in yet-to-be-located subsidies and voluntary programs,” said Melissa Lin Perrella, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. ![]() While environmentalists welcomed many elements of the plan, they criticized its lack of new targets for reducing smog-forming emissions as well as measures to ensure speedy progress and ease pollution-triggered health problems. says this is our plan, this is our goal, it sends a signal to a lot of other ports, to policymakers elsewhere.” “This may be the most important signal we’ve seen about a transition to zero emission for the freight sector,” said Daniel Sperling, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis and a member of the state Air Resources Board. Finding subsidies will put the ports in competition with an array of projects for a limited pot of pollution-reduction money, including California’s controversial bullet train.īut much of the plan’s significance, experts said, lies in the message it sends to manufacturers and suppliers: There will be a market to justify their investments in vehicles and equipment with no tailpipe emissions. Port officials predict that the cost of going to zero emissions will dwarf the estimated $2 million it took to implement the 2006 clean-air plan. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |