It has been reported that California Governor Gavin Newsom has vetoed a bill to limit the powers of the air-quaility regulator for the twin ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach – despite a lobbying campaign by the US West Coast’s powerful longshore union. The bill contained a provision to ban public funding for terminal automation technology in San Pedro Bay, which dockers believe to be a threat to their jobs.
Further content is only available for registered users
For decades San Pedro’s fenceline communities and environmental regulators have pushed for improving air quality, as it was proven that diesel air pollutants are harmful to health, and with considerable success. The South Coast Air Quality Management District wants to get even more results by regulating equipment and mobile sources of emission within the ports and has nearly reached a formal co-operative agreement with LA and Long beach on planning targets for zero-emissions infrastructure.
That agreement calls for large-scale infrastructure upgrades, with electrification playing a key role. Since modern, electrified port equipment is often sold with high levels of automation technology, the co-operative air quality agreement would likely introduce more automation to the ports by default, which could be viewed as a threat to longshoremen.
To head off this problem, Senate Bill 34 (SB 34) proposed to ban the use of public funds to pay for automated or remotely controlled infrastructure at the San Pedro Bay ports. Public funds for buying human-operated, zero-emission equipment would still be allowed.
In order to ensure continued volume growth, the bill also proposed to ban the South Coast Air Quality Management District from capping cargo or cruise ship activities at LA and Long Beach.
The bill was opposed by environmental groups, shipping companies and community health advocates. SB 34 was supported by the ILWU, which organised a petition drive for its members to express their backing. The union’s petition suggested that SB 34 “protects union jobs, prevents public funds from being used for automation, and keeps California’s ports strong and competitive while still improving air quality.”
Despite the union’s pressure, Newsom vetoed the bill, citing the advanced state of negotiations between the air quality district and the two seaports. “This bill interferes with this co-operative approach, the progress made, and the ongoing good faith efforts made by the district and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach,” the governor wrote.
The ILWU has yet to issue a formal response, but its East Coast sister union, the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), released a statement condemning Newsom’s “vicious attack” on dockers’ jobs. ILA described Newsom’s veto as a “gut punch” and a lost opportunity.
“By rejecting SB 34, the Governor has chosen the side of foreign ocean carriers and corporate lobbyists over the working men and women who keep California’s ports, and America’s economy, running,” ILA wrote. “When a state uses taxpayer money to subsidise automation that replaces human labour, it’s not innovation, it’s corporate welfare. And when an elected official enables that process, it’s not leadership, it’s capitulation.” However, the Union of Concerned Scientists celebrated Newsom’s veto as a win for air quality regulation. “SB 34 would have tied regulators’ hands further, negatively impacting the health of millions of residents in surrounding communities, and hindering the region’s ability to reach mandated attainment of federal and state air quality standards,” UCS said in a statement.