Once again, representatives of JP Morgan showed up at the Richmond City Council seeking approval for some kind of collaboration with the City of Richmond for a study of the Port of Richmond. Exactly what JP Morgan and their proposed partner, Moffat & Nichol had in mind became increasingly confusing as the discussion on the item developed. The “recommended action” from the staff report was “Receive a presentation by JP Morgan concerning ways to optimize the Port of Richmond as a community asset, and consider directing staff to negotiate a contract with JP Morgan and Moffat & Nichol as a financial and strategic advisory team.”

The report noted, “The financial impact cannot be determined at this time. Any contract for services would need to be brought to the City Council for subsequent approval, at which time the financial impact would be analyzed.”

JP Morgan’s pitch was essentially the same one they made for the economic feasibility of the Wildcat Marsh Container Port (See We're From JP Morgan and We're Here to Help You
October 27, 2006).

• Anticipated growth of trade with Asia will outpace the capacity of existing ports and related infrastructure.
• Richmond runs a risk of being left behind if it does nothing.
• Richmond is not a player in the high margin container business.

It appeared that what JP Morgan had in mind was some kind of aggregation of both public and private property with the sale of a “concession” for an expanded “optimized” port that would accommodate containers. When a representative of one of the most active privately owned port facilities along the Santa Fe Channel was asked how he felt about the prospect of his property being gobbled up for some kind of super port, he said, “Hey, everything’s for sale at the right price,”

As council members began to ask questions, it became clear that the waters of the Santa Fe Channel were not the only thing murky about this proposal.

Staff was unable to respond how a sole source consultant selection could be justified. When it appeared that JP Morgan was simply looking for a handout, staff waffled on whether the proposed contract would cost the City anything. Perhaps some interested investor would pay for the study, they suggested. That begged the question about whether the study would be objective and would address other concerns, such as environmental impacts. And if someone else was going to pay for the study, then why didn’t they just do it, and there would be no need for the City of Richmond to get involved.

Council members also suggested that any proposed radical changes to the industrial waterfront should be taken up as a part of the General plan process and not move on a separate path.

I can’t help but believe that there is a hidden agenda in all this dogged determination to somehow entwine JP Morgan with the Port of Richmond. Instead of beating around the bush, why don’t the proponents simply lay out their vision on the table for public discussion? While I want to “optimize” the Port of Richmond as much as anyone, I remain skeptical of grand initiatives. JP Morgan’s projections for port growth are inconsistent with those of BCDC. What would happen to all the commodities that now use the Port of Richmond (automobiles, cement, aggregate, gypsum, bulk liquids, etc) if it became a container port? What about the infrastructure? Although JP Morgan touts Richmond’s access to two railroads and interstate highways, we know that those highways are choked to capacity, and the railroads snake through south Richmond with long trains and grade crossings that already make life miserable for local drivers.

And what about pollution? We already know that parts of Richmond suffer from some of the worst pollution in California form diesel engines, highways and refineries. Cancer and asthma are above normal. Do we want to further sacrifice our health to chase the almighty dollar? Read the following article that blames ships as the largest source of goods related air pollution.

Ultimately, the City Council was so confused by what staff had in mind that they deferred action until more information could be provided.

Ships' emissions pose great threat, new study says
International Maritime Organization officials say if left unchecked, ships will emit more pollutants than all land sources
By Erik N. Nelson
MEDIANEWS STAFF

Posted on Fri, Mar. 23, 2007

All the world's cars, trucks and buses can't compete with oceangoing ships when it comes to releasing acid rain- and smog-making sulfur dioxide, according to findings released Thursday by a group of international transportation and environmental regulators.

The study found that although emissions from road vehicles has declined sharply in recent decades, emissions from large ships have changed little while the volume of worldwide shipping has steadily increased. Those two factors have allowed pollutants from ships, estimated at 6 million metric tons in 2001, to surpass road vehicle emissions estimated at 2.2 million metric tons.

If no stringent international ship emission regulations are adopted by the International Maritime Organization, the study warns, ship emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides will soon surpass those of not just land vehicles, but all land sources, including power plants, factories and refineries.

"If they'd be more aggressive in adopting tougher standards, then you'd see some of these emissions reduced," said Alan Lloyd, former head of California's Environmental Protection Agency. Lloyd is now president of the International Council on Clean Transportation, which produced the study.

Unlike squeezing additional controls out of today's relatively clean car engines, getting a large reduction in emission from oceangoing ships could be done fairly inexpensively, according to the study, "Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ocean-going Ships: Impacts, Mitigation Options and Opportunities for Managing Growth."

Reducing nitrogen oxides, for example, would cost between $11 and $729 per ton of the pollutant, the study found, whereas eliminating a ton of nitrogen oxides from land based sources in Europe and the United States ranges from $1,071 to $14,330. Cutting back on sulfur dioxide from ships costs more than reducing nitrogen oxides, but it's still much cheaper to do on water than on land, the study says.

The study adds to the body of evidence that has prompted efforts to curb air pollution from ships at the Port of Oakland and other California ports.

"We've actually known for a long time that ships produce the bulk of the goods-related air pollution," said Roberta Reinstein, manager of Environmental Programs and Safety at the Port of Oakland. "Certainly within our little sphere that we're trying to address, ship emissions are the biggest by a longshot."

The port has been working on techniques such as cold ironing, which hooks ships up to the local power grid so they can operate with their engines shut down in port, and powering ships with mobile natural-gas-powered generators. A new rule by the California Air Resources Board was to have required ships to use more refined, low-sulfur fuel before they got near California ports, but that rule is being challenged in court.

The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, which took the state air board to court over the regulation, might support the study's recommendations, said Michael Jacob, the association's vice president.

"If there are stricter rules, they should be done on an international level," Jacob said, echoing the argument against the state regulation, that it would foster a "patchwork quilt" of regulations that would be difficult for international shippers to obey.

Last year Congress stopped short of ratifying a new provision to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships that would have allowed countries to create areas where low-sulfur fuel would have to be used, Jacob added, but the new Congress elected in November is reconsidering it.

Although the nation may be slow to join such international agreements, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recognizes that ship emissions are a "significant problem," said EPA spokesman Mark Merchant.

"There's a concerted effort now to cut diesel emissions, not only from trucks, but also from ports," he said.

Earlier this month, the agency proposed the Clean Air Locomotive and Marine Diesel Rule, which would set tougher emission standards for new locomotive and marine diesel engines.

Reach Erik Nelson of the Oakland Tribune at enelson@angnewspapers.com or 510-208-6410.