2017 - A Year Of Frustration at The Brooklyn Cruise Terminal

WHY IS THERE NO MONITORING NOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE USE OF SHORE POWER AT THE BROOKLYN CRUISE TERMINAL?

If you've been following me on twitter - @viewfromthehook - you'll know that the NYCEDC has been making excuses all through the 2017 season about why cruise ships have not been plugging-in to Red Hook's multi-million dollar, zero-emissions shore power system.

EDC have been telling the public that one ship, the Queen Mary 2, has had "difficulty" plugging-in to shore power (despite the ship successfully connecting to shore power in Halifax and elsewhere). But the EDC also claimed that Princess ships have been connecting to shore power, for the most part, throughout the season. That is just not based in fact. As far as this blog can ascertain, the Princess ships have only plugged-in a handful of times (perhaps only 2 or 3), once on October 26th, coinciding with a press event that included an announcement of the expansion of the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal when Borough President Eric Adams was present. This is actually the only time I can be certain that a ship plugged in. Justine Johnson at the EDC confirmed the connection of the ship to shore power in writing to me and I was also able to take a trip on the ferry and view the shore power apparatus (davit, cables, etc.) in place and connected to the ship, and there were zero emissions visible from the funnels. The only other day a ship was stated to be plugged-in (by NYC Council Member Carlos Menchaca and others) was on May 31st, the day the NYC Ferry landing was launched, when the Queen Mary 2 was in port. On that day, Mayor de Blasio and other dignitaries were present. However, there was no confirmation of this connection by EDC.

Every other time I was able to check in on a ship docked at the terminal, throughout the season, it was clear that the ship was not plugged-in to shore power. I was able to both see fumes from the funnels, and many times I took the ferry around the stern of the ship and could see the shore power apparatus was not in place and the cables were not connected to the ship. I could literally see the cables dangling in the wind. This is what I witnessed with the Princess ships too, which the EDC was telling the public had been connecting to the shore power system. As I said, the EDC has not been truthful.

I called City Councilmember Carlos Menchaca one day when a ship was in port and idling, (I can see the funnels from my back yard), and he told me that EDC had not been able to confirm to him that ships were plugging in - they were telling him one thing and the public another. Carlos said that he was frustrated that there was no mechanism to either monitor nor enforce the use of shore power at the terminal. This seems crazy. He did say that he was working on some action that would create an enforcement mechanism, but I'm not sure what that would be and when it would happen.

We need to hold to account the EDC, Carlos Menchaca, and all involved, regarding what is happening here. The new operators of the cruise terminal - Ports America - according to press releases by EDC and statements by Carlos Menchaca, have committed to "zero emissions operations" at the cruise terminal. Ports America took over operations at the cruise terminal at the beginning of the season, and clearly that commitment has not been honored.

With the announcement, on Oct 26th, of the largest cruise ships - 6000+ passengers - coming to our neighborhood in the next few years, we have to ensure that the promises - and the 2011 formal agreement - made by the City, the NYCEDC, Carnival Cruise (who own Princess and Cunard), Ports America and our representatives are honored, the tens of millions of dollars of investments that have been made to build the zero emissions shore power system capitalized on, and the benefits to our community (less pollution and better health) realized. Otherwise, all we'll see is more pollution, more congestion, and zero benefit for Red Hook.

Last point - and a bit of background. When I first started paying attention to this matter over a decade ago - attending Port Authority, EDC meetings - it was always clear that there was a long term goal to expand the cruise terminal in Red Hook. The Port Authority were talking about building another terminal on Pier 10, and more. To me, this was extra incentive to get the shore power infrastructure built, so even if we did get more cruise ships, or bigger ships, at least we wouldn't get more pollution.

That was the whole point of advocating for shore power in the first place.

Now, in 2018, we need monitoring and enforcement of the use or shore power so the benefits of this zero-emissions technology can be finally realized.

Shore Power is Finally Operational and In Use at Brooklyn Cruise Terminal (UPDATE: Maybe Not! See Jan. 2018 Post)

The photo from first blog post in April 2009.
My two kids are on bikes, second from left and second from right.
They are now 13 and 19.

You might have read articles in the local media and elsewhere regarding the press release (here) from the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC) stating that 'shore power' is finally operational and in use at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. As readers of this blog know, shore power is a technology that lets ships "plug in" to the electricity grid while in port, allowing them to turn off their dirty diesel engines (this is called 'cold ironing'), rather than idling 24/7, as they have been. This is the first shore power berth on the entire U.S. East Coast.

Thanks to those of you who have sent me messages of congratulations for my part in raising awareness and advocating for this technology. I've been working for this result for over a decade since the Cruise Terminal opened at the bottom of our residential street in Red Hook. In April, 2009 - in an effort to further advocate for shore power and raise awareness of port and shipping pollution related issues in Red Hook, NYC and beyond - I started this blog, "A View From The Hook". In 2012, Friends of the Earth named me as one of their "Faces of Change" for these efforts. I was one of 7 individuals or organizations recognized that year for their environmental activism.

So this is a great achievement, right? Unfortunately, despite the press release stating that the use of this technology will “eliminate 1,500 tons of carbon dioxide, 95 tons of nitrous oxide, and 6.5 tons of particulate matter annually" (and that the) "health benefits associated with improved air quality will generate approximately $99 million in cumulative savings over 15 years”, there is no event planned to celebrate shore power coming on line in Red Hook,

I guess the Port Authority and the NYCEDC don't want to make too big a deal of this technology and its health and environmental benefits, because if more residents knew, they would be demanding (as I have here and elsewhere) that shore power be used throughout our city and region's ports, for all types of large oceangoing ships - cruise and container ships too, which also idle in port, burning dirty diesel, emitting dangerous and climate change-inducing emissions. The truth is that ports on the West Coast - including the two largest in the U.S., the Ports of Long Beach and L.A. - have been building shore power infrastructure for a decade for cruise and container ships, as well as implementing other port pollution reduction measures, such as clean truck programs. In comparison, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey have been laggards when it comes to reducing port pollution at our nation's third largest port complex.

On a personal note, it would have also been nice for the EDC and the Port Authority to acknowledge my efforts - a decade worth of activism and advocacy for no personal gain - which was often lonely, thankless work, with no-one seemingly interested in the beginning. From the time I started writing letters to the City and to my neighbors about this issue in 2005, it was many years of research, writing, blogging, shouting into the abyss, going to meetings, and slowly building community awareness. I was joined by a few others who were on-board early with this fight who should also be acknowledged. My old friend, Diana Schneider, from Columbia Street Waterfront District, who for many years had been going to local meetings, demanding action on port pollution. Sherri Harden, from the Red Hook Initiative, who has been an early and staunch advocate for shore power at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal and the health benefits it would bring to our already pollution-burdened community. Finally, when progress was stalling, our representatives started to really get on board and demand this technology be put into use at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. That made a difference. I think people in power finally realized that this plan was a "no-brainer" and that the health and environmental benefits (as is now stated in the EDC's press release) would be pretty impressive.

To reiterate:

The use of shore power by cruise ships at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal (will) … “eliminate 1,500 tons of carbon dioxide, 95 tons of nitrous oxide, and 6.5 tons of particulate matter annually. The health benefits associated with improved air quality will generate approximately $99 million in cumulative savings over 15 years.”

It's a disappointment that those (including our representatives) whose efforts ultimately helped to bring these benefits to our neighborhood and beyond aren't being recognized as part of an event marking this achievement - the much anticipated use of shore power use at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. Wouldn't the fact this technology has finally come on line be something that should be celebrated, as happened in San Diego in 2010 when the "switch was flipped" on their shore power infrastructure? I guess not.


That absence of celebration and acknowledgment makes this victory a little less sweet.

Follow me on Twitter: @ViewFromTheHook

Shore Power Update & Please follow "A View From The Hook" on Twitter @ViewFromTheHook

Hi folks,

As you can see, this blog has been dormant for a while. I'm not shutting it down. You never know when important information might need to be shared in detail - using more than 140 characters! But for now, there won't be many updates here.

Which leads me to remind you, much of the information I have been sharing and news on matters that have been covered in this blog since 2009, I also share via Twitter. Many of the articles and writings I "tweet" pertain to the important issues impacting our New York City neighborhood of Red Hook, Brooklyn, and beyond - shipping & port pollution, resilience, transportation, waterfront issues, development, climate.

So, if you're interested, please follow @viewfromthehook


UPDATE: STILL WAITING FOR SHORE POWER

I guess I should also update you on one of the issues that really kicked off this blog - the cruise ships that idle at the edge of our waterfront neighborhood, spewing dirty diesel emissions into our air and into our kids lungs while they're in port. Well, they're still idling!

Despite the "shore power" infrastructure we all fought long and hard for being ready, according to the NYC Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC), and the ships that visit the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal also ready, retrofitted and able to accept the electricity so they can turn off their dirty diesel engines while in port, the latest information is that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) has not fully tested and certified the shore power equipment so that the ships can finally plug in.

In September, 2015, we were told that this "testing" was going to take place asap. We had previously been told that the shore power infrastructure would be ready for the 2015 cruise season. And now it's April, the 2016 cruise season is upon us, and we're still waiting.

This is just unacceptable.

It was the PANYNJ that presented information to the Public Service Commission in January, 2010, stating that plugging in cruise ships to shore power at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, allowing the ships to turn off their engines while in port, would save Brooklyn residents a monetized amount approaching $9 Million per year in health costs. $9M per year!

We have been waiting a decade - since 2006 when the terminal was built - for the Port Authority to do the right thing at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. It's been 10 years of kids in Red Hook and beyond breathing in Particulate Matter (2.5), which has been linked to more and more harmful health effects, especially to children. Asthma, heart disease, cancer, autism, premature birth, and the list goes on. There have also been recent studies showing that when ships use low sulphur diesel (even though this "clean" diesel is still 1000s of times dirtier than the type trucks can legally use), the burning of that diesel actually creates more of this harmful Particulate Matter. So "clean diesel" is no solution at all. It's also been 10 years of the ships at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal spewing climate change inducing CO2, NOx, SOx, Black Carbon, etc., and burning hundreds of gallons of fossil-fuel diesel per hour - continuously while in port!

I don't know why the Port Authority has such a cavalier attitude towards portside communities and their quality of life, especially neighborhoods like Red Hook which has high rates of asthma and many environmentally impacted residents. Is the health of our kids not important enough for those in charge at the Port Authority to get this shore power infrastructure up and running - asap? The fact is, over the last decade the Port Authority has not been in a rush to implement green port practices. Even when the Brooklyn shore power system does get up and running, it will be the first such berth in the whole of the Ports of New York and New Jersey. Every single other ship in this great port city will be idling in port, burning dirty diesel, warming the planet and spewing all these harmful toxins into the air and into portside communities. While the largest ports in the U.S. on the West Coast have moved aggressively forward with shore power (for cruise and container ships), clean trucks programs, and other green port practices, here on the East Coast - at the Ports of NY and NJ, the third largest port complex in the country - we've been stuck in neutral, still idling.

The Port Authority really needs to start doing the right thing - by our kids and by the planet.

How about starting with getting the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal shore power up and running - like yesterday?


NOTE: If you are interested in issues pertaining to clean ports, shipping and transportation, please do follow Moving Forward Network. They have been doing great work on these matters and have an ongoing campaign to reduce the dependence on diesel in our transportation and goods movement sector. It's called #ZeroEmissionsNow

Follow Moving Forward Network on Twitter: @The_MFN

- AA

Shore Power is Coming! ... at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal

Since the announcement in April, 2011 that the DEAL WAS DONE to create the first shore power berth on the U.S. East Coast at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal (BCT), it has been a slow, long wait for the Red Hook community wanting to see some physical proof that this plan was actually happening.

Well, it is happening - though there have been a couple of "speed bumps" along the way.

The change in the leadership of the Port Authority was one. In October, 2011, Chris Ward - a strong supporter of the shore power plan - announced he was leaving his Executive Directorship role at the PA and Pat Foye was coming in. After that change of leadership, the Port Authority started baulking at an extra $4.3 Million that was going to be required to get this plan up and running.

See this, from a post on this blog in March, 2012 -

"A few weeks back, there was the troubling news that that the Port Authority was balking at the revised cost of creating the shore power infrastructure at the terminal. They had okayed the original investment, but were questioning the extra amount that would be required. 

How much were we talking about here? According to this Brooklyn Eagle story (here), the shortfall was $4.3 Million.

When the Port Authority has already made statements saying that this plan would save Brooklyn residents $9 Million per year - let me say that again - PER YEAR - in health costs. When those health costs include, as stated by the EPA and many others, asthma, cancer, premature death, lung and heart disease. When those who disproportionately bear this burden are our most vulnerable - our children (Red Hook's kids already have 40% asthma rates), the elderly, minority and low-income communities. Why is this even a question?

Yes, the Port Authority is having budget problems, but on that matter they're talking about numbers in the billions of dollars. So to quibble over this relatively small amount, when the savings are so obvious and precious (we're talking about our kids here) - and knowing that the added investment pays for itself in 6 months - it seems very short sighted to be delaying this plan."

Well, in June, 2012, the people at the Port Authority finally came to their senses and gave their approval to the extra funding (story here). The Brooklyn Cruise Terminal shore power plan was a go!

Then came Superstorm Sandy. 

The storm and the damaging flooding that inundated our neighborhood in October, 2012 threw a wrench in the works of everything that was happening in Red Hook. The shore power plan was no exception. With the new reality of potential flooding, threats to infrastructure, housing, economic activity and more on everyone's mind, there was a lot to consider. The entire future of Red Hook seemed uncertain.

Many people asked in the last year or so, "Is the shore power plan happening?". "When is it happening?". We asked representatives of our elected officials for answers. The replies we received were all assurances that this plan was going ahead, despite the delays. But, people were still asking, "Where is the evidence?"

Then Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez got involved. A letter was sent from her office to the Port Authority asking for an update on the progress. Their response came in May, 2013, in the way of a letter to Congresswoman Velázquez, (and CCd to many of our other representatives), stating that the Port Authority was announcing it was ready to "initiate the construction and installation of Shore Power Technology at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook". They stated that the infrastructure would be ready "no later than the 2015 cruise ship season." View the entire letter here.

Well that was good news, but - again - where was the evidence?

Well last month, with Red Hook's future and resiliency looking better than ever, with new energy filling the neighborhood and an even greater sense of community involvement evident to all, the proof came that the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal shore power plan was truly happening.

Infrastructure!

These pieces of electrical infrastructure appeared on the cruise terminal site. The Red Hook Star Review posted a simple tweet on April 19th - "Shore power" - followed by a group of photos taken during a walk around the neighborhood, within which were photos of theses three pieces of "technology", for want of a better word that had been recently placed on the cruise terminal site. "A View From The Hook" took a look as well.  They look like transformers, but we haven't been able to find out exactly what the correct description of these items are, but they are obviously being installed as part of the coming shore power infrastructure. The Red Hook Star Review was right - 

Now we have it. The physical evidence that the shore power infrastructure is being built and on its way to being completed, with the promise of it being put into service "no later than the 2015 cruise season", as the Port Authority has stated.

This is great news for our community. Finally, the cruise ships will be "plugging in" to the electric grid and will be able to stop idling their dirty diesel engines while in port at the edge of our dense residential neighborhoods. We'll all look forward to enjoying the improvements in air quality; the removal of the carcinogenic and asthma inducing substances that are emitted from those idling engines; improvements in the health of our children and the most vulnerable among us who are disproportionately affected by those pollutants; reduction in the burning of greenhouse gas creating fuels; and so many more benefits - both economic and environmental - that have been articulated in this blog over the last five years. 

We can now all believe it. 

In 2015, the Queen Mary II and other visiting cruise ships will finally be kicking their smoking habit, and the people of Red Hook and beyond will be breathing a little easier.

(5/5/14 - This post was edited for clarity and typos - I don't have an editor, people!)

OTHER SHORE POWER/ SHIPPING POLLUTION NEWS YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED 

(Though the NY press/ media is *still* negligently ignoring this issue)

Malta Today: Shipping's black cloud: "Rise in shipping pollution could end up killing 100,000s before new legislation is enforced"

Law 360: @EPA to enforce pollution rules for large ships in US waters. PM (soot), NOx, SOx

Port Strategy: "it is in ports near where people live that human health is most affected"

Shipping News: First Ship Plugged-In @ Port of Hueneme = 92% reduction in PM, 98% in NOx, 55% in GH gasses

Motorship: Taking shorepower to the next level: There will always be a market for shorepower in residential port cities

Ship and Bunker: T&E says don't delay rule "[NOx] is an invisible killer causing cancer and lung disease"

Ship and Bunker: Latest California Cold Ironing represents"the single largest reduction in air emissions by one project in the history of the county"

Port Strategy: There is a shore power standard so "ports in the US can use the same system as Denmark"

Post and Courier: 1 Cruise ship idling in port = SOx "comparable to over 34,000 idling tractor trailers"- "Shore power is a must"

ABC News (Australia): Concern about cruise ship emissions in Sydney, Australia: Locals demand halt to cruise ships in harbour

The Packer: "Shore power in port helps maintains cold chain, reduce emissions"

Environmental Leader: All 13 international cargo terminals at the Port of LA and Port of Long Beach now power docked ships with electricity

Washington Times: February is "SHORE POWER NOW" month in Charleston.

.

Friends of The Earth: "Dangerous Levels of Deadly Soot" From Ships at Manhattan Cruise Terminal

QM2 at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal - photo: Joshua Kristal, South Brooklyn Post

In November, representatives from NABU, a German based environmental organization, visited New York to take pollution measurements at the Manhattan Cruise Terminal. NABU had been taking these tests at different cruise terminal location around the world, so these New York measurements were going to provide valuable information about the emissions from idling cruise ships berthed at our city's primary terminal.

Friends of the Earth, who have been collaborating with NABU, just released the results of these tests in a press release (here).

"At each port -- New York, Venice, Italy and Hamburg and Rostok, Germany -- samples taken by NABU with an ultrafine particle counter contained hundreds of thousands of microscopic ultrafine particles of soot per cubic centimeter of air. In New York, the sample contained 201,000 ultrafine particles of soot per cubic centimeter while the cruise ship Norwegian Gem was idling on Nov. 15, 2013."

NUBU recorded video of their particle counter taking the measurements in real time as the Norwegian Gem idled at the Manhattan terminal.

Dr. Axel Friedrich, formerly an air quality expert with the German federal environmental agency, who led the testing, is quoted in the Friends of the Earth press release:

“These extremely high measurements at the cruise ship docks are from the use of heavy fuel oil or bunker fuel and lack of pollution control technology,” 

He stated that, without pollution control technology, such as the use of particle scrubbing or the use of shore power, "cruise ship engines must operate continuously at the dock to keep the lights on, releasing huge quantities of toxic gases that harm public health."

And there's more (from the press release): 

"Leif Miller, CEO of NABU, said the World Health Organization considers soot as carcinogenic as asbestos."

“These measurements now demonstrate for the first time how much worse air pollution in ports is made by the pollution from idling cruise ships,” said Miller. As the cruise industry continued to grow rapidly, this means that every year more and more passengers and residents of port cities are exposed to deadly soot. Since the technology needed to clean up emissions is here today, this is unacceptable.”

The release of the results of this study should give those of us who have been calling for the implementation of pollution mitigation practices - such as the use of shore power -  at all of our city's ports more impetus to keep doing so. The evidence is clear. These idling ships are pouring out huge quantities of carcinogenic emissions into our city's air and into our residents' lungs, and that is totally unacceptable - especially because it's totally avoidable.

Friends of the Earth make the point that Carnival Cruise Lines, which operates all of the ships visiting the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, has installed some pollution mitigating technology on some of its ships, but Marcie Keever, oceans and vessels program director of Friends of the Earth U.S., states,

"It's unacceptable that some Carnival Corporation ships will be installing state-of-the-art air pollution controls, but not the entire fleet." She states, "It's time for Carnival to stop dragging its feet, not only on the health and safety of its passengers but of people in the ports where it calls. If Carnival cares about people and the planet, the company should install the most health-protective technology on all ships, across all of the lines it operates, to keep the air we breathe clean and healthy."

This is a great point. 

This should be a fleet-wide and port-wide practice. The same goes for the installation of shore power technology. In 2014, the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook is scheduled to become the first port on the East Coast to offer shore power, allowing all of the visiting cruise ships to turn off their engines (that's called cold ironing), and "plug in" to the city's electricity grid while at port, totally eliminating all of those harmful substances we have been discussing and providing great health benefits to the terminal's neighbors and the residents of our city. 

These measures should be in place at all of our ports - including at container terminals - throughout our region. At the Ports of New York and New Jersey, the third largest port complex in the country, we should be implementing these life saving measures comprehensively - as is being done at the largest ports, the West Coast ports of LA and Long Beach. Just as Carnival is dragging its feet on pollution controls, so is the Port Authority of NY and NJ, which have been absolute laggards in addressing issues of port pollution. They are being left in the dust by their West Coast counterparts - and the residents of our city are being left in the soot!

Even if the Port Authority is dawdling on theses matters at our city's major container ports, the next easy step should be the one that is the clear consequence of the findings of the NABU study. 

The Manhattan Cruise Terminal - operated by the NYC Economic Development Corporation - should be the next terminal to be equipped with shore power technology, as is currently being done at its Brooklyn counterpart. The residents of Manhattan's West Side should no more be inundated by the tons of emissions and carcinogenic particles created by the visiting cruise ships - up to three at a time - idling at the edge of their residential neighborhood. Why should the vulnerable residents of that neighborhood - children, the elderly, people with respiratory illness - be subjected to these harmful substances? Especially when their fellow New Yorkers, in Red Hook, Brooklyn, who are neighbors to the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, after years voicing their objection to this practice, have secured a solution - the use of shore power for the cruise ships visiting their neighborhood's terminal.

This NABU study should convince us all - the City's "Idle-Free NYC" rule should apply to ships, too - and the cruise ships visiting the Manhattan Cruise Terminal should be the next ones to comply.

.

NYC Welcomes "Norwegian Breakaway" - West Side Residents Welcome More Unmitigated Pollution! (UPDATED: West Coast Stories)

Photo from NYCEDC blog.

This week, New York added a new cruise ship to the list of vessels calling our city's ports home. That ship is the "Norwegian Breakaway", which is the largest cruise ship to homeport in Manhattan. (The largest cruise ship that homeports in NYC - the Queen Mary 2 - berths at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook). Mayor Bloomberg, New York Cruise and the New York City Economic Development Corporation were all abuzz about the arrival of this ship and its imminent "christening".

The NYCEDC blog described the event this way:

This week, NYCEDC and Mayor Bloomberg joined Norwegian Cruise Line and the Rockettes to christen the Norwegian Breakaway, the largest cruise ship ever to port in NYC! The enormous 4,000-passenger vessel with Peter Max’s signature artwork on its hull was a sight to behold at the Manhattan Cruise Terminal at Pier 88.
“The arrival of the Norwegian Breakaway—the largest cruise ship to homeport in Manhattan—is another proof point of the growth and success of New York City’s $200 million cruise sector, a cornerstone of the City’s $55 billion tourism industry,” said Mayor Bloomberg.

The City and NYCEDC are always talking about the economic benefits of the cruise industry, but never talk about the economic and environmental impact of this industry - due to pollution, health impacts, and other factors. (Not to mention the fact that the cruise industry has a pretty poor record regarding labor law and in paying taxes. For example, over the past 5 years, Carnival paid only 1.1% in tax).

The lack of acknowledgement of this impact, particularly regarding the health impacts that the emissions of these visiting ships is having on our city's residents, prompted me to write this comment on the NYCEDC blog website:

Are your readers aware that these huge ships - like all ocean-going ships that visit the ports of New York (cruise, container and cargo) - are constantly idling while in port? While they berth at our city's terminals, often next to our most dense residential neighborhoods, they are continuously running their dirty diesel engines to supply the ship's electrical needs.

 The emissions that these ships' engines create while in port - equivalent to up to 30,000 cars - are high in sulfur and soot and the EPA regards them to be carcinogenic and asthma inducing, among their various well-documented negative health impacts. These impacts, says the EPA, are most acutely shouldered by our most vulnerable - our children, people with respiratory ailments (like asthma), the elderly and low income or minority communities.

As toxic as they are, there is a way to stop these harmful substances being emitted while the ships are in port. That is to "plug-in" the ships to the city's electric grid - using what is called "shore power" - thereby allowing the ships to turn off their dirty diesel engines while in port (this is a practice called "cold ironing"). Despite the fact that this practice has been used widely in many places - like on the West Coast (Ports of LA, Long Beach, etc.) - and has been used by the US Navy for over 50 years, East Coast ports have not one single port with "shore power" in use. (Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in New York is supposed to be the first on the East Coast to do so in 2014 - after a long fought effort by the community to make it happen - but no infrastructure has yet been built, and until it is up and running, no one is counting that chicken).

The Ports of NY and NJ make up the third largest port complex in the nation - behind the West Coast ports I mentioned. Compared to the actions taken by the mayors, etc. of those West Coast cities, why hasn't the administration of this city taken the emissions of these ships seriously, especially when there is a way to actually eliminate those emissions - one that is tried and proven in those other port cities?

Yes, the cruise industry and shipping industry is having a positive impact on our city's economy, but without these pollution mitigating technologies, there is a tremendous price being paid - often unknowingly - by our port-side residents. Are the residents of the West Side of Manhattan even aware that these huge ships - sometimes 3 at a time - are all idling while berthed at the edge of their neighborhood, spewing fumes over their heads and into their children's lungs? Why don't they know? Isn't it the City's obligation to educate these residents about the poisons that are being injected by these ships into their air?

The fact is, the City never acknowledges the burden that is being shouldered by our city's residents in negative health impacts due to the emissions of ships and other port activities.

The City and NYCEDC are constantly touting the economic benefits of our cruise industry, but never a mention of any of the negative impacts - on our health and environment. For an administration that prides itself on its "green" credentials, that is shameful. History will not look kindly on the inaction of Mayor Bloomberg, the NYCEDC and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in tackling the impact of port emissions over the last 10 years.

There's still time to do something, but the record - as of now - is a pretty sorry one.


UPDATE: WEST COAST STORIES

In case you wondered what was happening on the West Coast, check out these articles -

Ship and Bunker: "Millions of Dollars Being Spent on Shore Side Power"

Maritime Executive: "Long Beach: Port, Terminals, Ships Investing in Shore Power"

. 

Friends of the Earth's "Annual Report 2012 : The Faces of Change" Highlights Our Efforts to Eliminate Cruise Ship Pollution in Red Hook

Friends of the Earth just published their Annual Report for 2012 (from this page you can download the whole report as a PDF). This year they are calling their report "The Faces of Change" and in it you will, in their words, "read the stories of everyday individuals who are fighting heroically to protect the environment from the abuses of corporations seeking to maximize profit while ignoring environmental impacts, or standing up to government agencies and policies that fail to protect the environment, or working to rebuild after extreme weather disasters like Superstorm Sandy."

In this year's report, Friends of the Earth decided to focus on seven individuals, and I am honored to say that they chose to include me, this blog, our community and the efforts we have all made, over many years, to eliminate cruise ship pollution in Red Hook.

The piece on Red Hook highlights the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal "shore power" plan, which will allow the idling cruise ships to turn off their dirty-diesel engines while in port and plug into the city's electricity grid, thereby eliminating tons of dangerous emissions - NOx, SOx, PM (soot), CO2 - which currently spew over our neighborhood (and beyond) and into our residents' lungs. NOTE: Although the shore power plan was approved nearly 2 years ago, as this South Brooklyn Post article reminds us, it has yet to come "on-line". The most recent statements from the City state that the plan will be up and running in 2014. Meanwhile, these carcinogenic and asthma inducing substances still continue to pump out of the idling cruise ships (and container ships too - but that's another story) that berth at our residential neighborhood's waterfront.

Please find below excerpts from the Friends of the Earth "Annual Report 2012: Faces of Change" (click on the images to enlarge)

I am certainly grateful to Friends of the Earth for highlighting our local story and this important issue. I would like to thank John Kaltenstein who works on these issues for Friends of the Earth and advocates for better maritime environmental standards at the IMO (International Maritime Organization) and elsewhere. He contacted me many years ago when he saw that I was trying to raise awareness of the dangers of port pollution in Red Hook and throughout the ports of New York and New Jersey - from the emissions of ships, trucks and other sources - and he encouraged me to keep getting out the word, sharing information, and himself sharing information with me and drawing attention to the issue in articles like this in Sustainable Shipping - "The Big Apple's Big Shipping Pollution Problem". John made the suggestion to his colleague, Lisa Stone, who is the publications manager at FOE, to include our story in this year's report. FOE has played a tremendous role in raising awareness of the dangers of ship emissions, whether from cruise ships, container ships, or other large oceangoing vessels. They have worked on establishing better emissions standards for ships, through the use of lower sulfur fuels and the establishment of "Emissions Control Areas", as is being implemented in the coastal waters of North America, and have pressed for the use of shore power. They have highlighted the environmental impacts of the cruise industry, and every year release a "Cruise Report Card" which allows potential vacationers to assess and compare a cruise ship or cruise line's "environmental and human health impacts". (FYI - The Queen Mary 2 gets an "F" for "air pollution reduction"). Their work on these matters has been exemplary.

Our inclusion in the Annual Report is heartening recognition of the effort that our community has made on these important issues. But it's still important to recognize that we've still got a long way to go - in Red Hook, our city, and around the country.

As I stated, the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal "shore power" plan still isn't up and running. I haven't heard that there has been any negative impact on that plan resulting from the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy - whether it be delays or otherwise - but the NYCEDC and Port Authority haven't been the most communicative entities in the City, so we'll just have to hope everything is going according to plan.

Also, this shouldn't be the end of the establishment of shore power at our city's ports, it should be the beginning. There should be a plan to use this technology throughout our ports  - the third largest in the country - at cruise ship terminals (hello West Side!) and container terminals, as is being done on the West Coast and elsewhere. Mayor Bloomberg has not been very outspoken on these issues, and though the acknowledgment of "port pollution" made it into the City's "Vision 2020 - Comprehensive Waterfront Plan" (barely, because initial drafts of the plan made no mention of the pollution impacts of ships, ports, etc. - nor ways to mitigate that pollution!), the issue gets no exposure through the Mayor's office, nor - to its great shame - through the press. Perhaps a new Mayor will be more "out front" on port pollution issues, as any mayor of a great port city should be, but we'll have to see about that.

It's clear that these issues are also gaining awareness around the country and world. I constantly see stories (though rarely in our local press) about the impacts of port pollution, the health and environmental burden that portside communities are bearing for the "economic benefit" of cruise terminals, container ports, and other stories about these issues. Look at the current debate in Savannah, Georgia where they are considering building a cruise terminal and note the impact that a similar cruise terminal in Charleston, S.C. has had on its community - "A Savannah Cruise Port: Host Cities Pay the Price". Referring to the "bunker fuel" that large ocean-going ships burn while at sea and while idling in port, the Savannah Morning News article states:

“Bunker fuel is so dirty that even the cleaner bunker fuel is hundreds of times dirtier than on-road diesel fuel,” Keever said, referring to the fact that the current fuel is 650 times dirtier than truck diesel fuel. 

Cruise ships run their engines while in port to power the cabins for passengers and crew.
For a 2,500-passenger ship with a crew of 1,000, the sulfur dioxide emissions for a 10-hour stay equal that of more than 34,000 diesel trucks idling for the same amount of time, based on calculations vetted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Then there is the story from Maritime Professional about Hong Kong - "Ship Emissions an Afterthought at Hong Kong Cruise Terminal".

This is a very familiar story to the residents of Red Hook.

There is much being done to try to fight for measures to reduce this pollution and its terrible health impacts - whether locally or globally - on our port-side communities, often borne by the most vulnerable. Friends of the Earth have been at the forefront of that fight.

I so appreciate Friends of the Earth raising the awareness of Red Hook's part of the story, and I am honored to be included in their Annual Report 2012 as someone who has played a role in that story - as a "Face of Change".

AA

.

Port Authority's Press Release on Brooklyn Cruise Terminal Shore Power Plan

 I thought I'd post the Port Authority's press release regarding the approval of the shore power plan for the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. It seems like the situation with the shortfall in funds  - the sticking point in making this plan a reality - was resolved by the Empire State Development Corporation, which shifted some funds from the New York ports dredging commitment to the shore power plan.

The press release also states that Governor Cuomo had a hand in making this all work, and if that means that he is aware of the importance of investment in this sort of life-saving and environmentaly friendly technology to our city, its ports and our residents, that's a very good thing.

Given the Port Authority's initial reluctance to make up the shortfall in getting the shore power plan up and running, it was pleasing to read Port Authority Executive Director Pat Foye's statement saying that “The return on our investment in this project will be measured in the tons of toxins removed from the environment, cleaner air and better health for Brooklyn residents who live in the neighborhoods near the terminal.”

He goes further, stating, "The Port Authority has a long-standing and unwavering commitment to safeguarding the environment in the communities that host our facilities and across the bi-state region we serve."

Well, in reality, the Port Authority has been pretty slow in acknowledging the negative environmental and health impacts that the activities of the ports have our city's residents - especially our most vulnerable. In one of the meetings that I attended, convened by the City Council's Committee on Waterfronts, under the heading "Greening New York City's Working Waterfront", the Port Authority spokesperson, Richard Larrabee, went out of his way to understate and minimize the pollution impacts that the activities of our city's ports create. In my post covering that meeting, (here), and in testimony I made to that committee, I tried to set the record straight. Here's what I stated -

"The facts are, according to the Environmental Defense Fund (via this article from John Kaltenstein, Friends of the Earth) the yearly operations of the Ports of NY and NJ (Ed Note - i.e. the ships visiting the ports) create as much pollution as 7.8 million cars. That's 7,000+ tons of NOx (nitrogen oxides), nearly 5,000 tons of SO2 (sulfur dioxide) and 600 tons of Particulate Mater (PM)."

"Ships create 91% of the SO2, 47% of the NOx, and 62% of the particulates the operations of the port produces - that's information from the Port Authority. Trucks that service the ports also contribute significant percentages of these substances, with 25% of the NOx, 12% of PM and 37% of CO2."

It was clear, at that time, that the Port Authority was hardly coming clean on this stuff. My point was that until the Port Authority acknowledged the contribution that the activities of their ports had in creating this dangerous pollution, how could they ever meaningfully address it?

And they have been slow to do anything in the way of shore power - Brooklyn will be the first - and even in getting a comprehensive "clean truck" program up and running, we're dawdling. The truth is that this city and its agencies are way behind their West Coast counterparts on "green port" matters.

Even regarding this shore power plan for the cruise ships visiting the Brooklyn Terminal, when the Port Authority came to our community in 2009 and told us that they were going to get this plan up and running - after years of community activism calling for this life saving technology to be used at the new "state of the art" terminal in Red Hook - the PA spokesperson, when asked, said that he'd only know about shore power for "a couple of years". Now, this is a technology that has been used by the US Navy for over 50 years, has been increasingly implemented on the West Coast after its first use more than a decade ago, and has been available in many other countries around the world. For someone representing an entity called the Port Authority to make this statement was astounding to me.

Anyway - all of that history aside - these statements from Mr. Foye are pleasing and seem to show increased acknowledgement of the impacts of port pollution on our residents and of the Port Authority's responsibility to address and reduce those negative health impacts. As I've said many times, this Brooklyn plan should be the first step in implementing this type of life saving technology throughout our ports. We have the 3rd largest port complex in the country, outside of Long Beach and Los Angeles. In those West Coast ports, much has been done with these technologies, with all types of ships - cruise, container, etc. They've seen the value in it. The Mayor of Long Beach, Bob Foster, stated that plugging a large container ship in to shore-power "takes enough pollution out of the air to equal 33,000 cars”. That's a huge reduction in carcinogenic and asthma inducing emissions, not to mention green house gases.

So, there's still lots to be done here, in New York.

Perhaps the recent statements from the Port Authority acknowledge that.

If so, hopefully the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal will be the first of many, similar shore power berths around our city.

One thing's for sure - this is a good start.

Here is the Port Authority press release -

 June 28, 2012

PORT AUTHORITY TO PROCEED WITH INSTALLATION OF SHORE POWER TECHNOLOGY AT BROOKLYN CRUISE TERMINAL

Board authorizes funds to pay unique first-of-its-kind environmental project

Construction of the East Coast’s first shore power port facility will move forward toward a 2014 completion following today’s action by the Port Authority’s Board of Commissioners. The project will create 30 jobs and result in $22 million in economic activity.

At its monthly meeting, the Board authorized additional funds provided by the Empire State Development Corporation needed to complete the $19.3 million shore power port facility. The project will allow cruise ships serving the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal to plug in to a more environmentally friendly electrical landside power source rather than operating on their diesel generated power while at the dock.

“The cruise industry is a vital contributor to the region’s economy, and today’s action will ensure it continues to drive job growth and economic activity,” said Port Authority Vice Chairman Scott Rechler. “Today’s action makes good economic sense, is good for the environment and will help make the port more competitive.”

“The Port Authority has a long-standing and unwavering commitment to safeguarding the environment in the communities that host our facilities and across the bi-state region we serve,” said Port Authority Executive Director Pat Foye. “I want to thank Governor Cuomo for his leadership on this issue, which will create jobs and sustain the long term viability of the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. The return on our investment in this project will be measured in the tons of toxins removed from the environment, cleaner air and better health for Brooklyn residents who live in the neighborhoods near the terminal.”

“Shore Power will help Brooklyn breath a little easier while maintaining the competitiveness of one of its greatest assets, the working waterfront,” said Kenneth Adams, President & CEO, Empire State Development. “Under Governor Cuomo’s leadership, we look forward to continuing to work with our partners at the Port Authority to strengthen the economy of the harbor while ensuring a cleaner environment.”

“Shore powers means Brooklyn will be able to breathe a little easier. The implementation of our agreement gets us closer to ending the dirty and dangerous fumes spewed by idling cruise ships at the Red Hook port - and that’s good news for Brooklynites and for our environment,” said Senator Daniel Squadron. “Thank you to the Port Authority, Empire State Development and all of our colleagues and partners who made today’s great news possible.”

Ships serving the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal are typically in port for up to 11 hours loading and unloading passengers and supplies. While docked, the ship’s power is supplied by auxiliary engines on board the vessel, which are typically powered by high sulfur diesel fuel. The use of shore power will allow two ships calling on the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal - Queen Mary 2, and Caribbean Princess - to connect to an electrical grid on the dock and turn off their engines. The environmental benefits include an annual reduction of 1,500 tons of carbon dioxide, 95 tons of nitrous oxide, and 6.5 tons of particulate matter.

Funding for the project includes $12.1 million from the Port Authority, a $2.9 million grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. On Tuesday, the Empire State Development Corporation voted to allocate $4.3 million from the Port Authority’s Bistate Dredging commitment to New York State to the shore power project. In addition, Princess and Cunard will spend up to $4 million to retrofit its ships. The New York Power Authority will supply electricity to the cruise lines at a fixed and discounted rate for a period of five years, which is valued at roughly $2 million per year.

The Brooklyn Cruise Terminal is owned by the Port Authority and managed by the New York City Economic Development Corporation.

CONTACT: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Steve Coleman, 212 435-7777

FINALLY ... Port Authority OKs Shore Power at Brooklyn Cruise Terminal

Photo: Joshua Kristal, South Brooklyn Post

Brooklyn residents will be happy to hear that, yesterday, the Port Authority - finally! - gave the go-ahead for the use of shore power for cruise ships visiting the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook. The news came via a press release from State Senator Daniel Squadron who has been a strong and outspoken supporter of this plan, often citing the health benefits that the plugging-in of these idling, dirty-diesel burning, sea-going behemoths would bring to his port-side constituents and communities beyond. The Port Authority, though technically committing to the shore power plan 18 months ago, had been balking at some additional expenditures that would be required to get the infrastructure built to make shore power a reality at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. The total additional expenditure required was said to be only half of the estimated *yearly* health benefits that the change to pollution mitigating shore power would bring to Brooklyn residents, according to the Port Authority's own statements - those savings being $9 Million per year. However, somehow the Port Authority was still struggling with the worthiness of the extra investment.

It seems like the pressure applied by our representatives - State Senator Daniel Squadron, City Councilmember Brad Lander, CM Sarah Gonzalez, Congresswoman Nydia Velasquez - as well as advocacy from Community Board 6 and our own community members and organizations, made the Port Authority see the light. So, yesterday, the plan's full funding was approved.

Here is part of the text from Senator Squadron's press release (full text here):

The agreement, which was reached over a year ago at the urging of Senator Squadron and other community leaders but was not approved until today, will allow cruise ships to plug into the electrical grid rather than burning diesel fuels while idling at the port. The Port Authority expects implementation to be completed by 2014.

Senator Squadron released the following statement:

"Brooklyn just breathed a sigh of relief -- because shore power means we'll be able to breathe a little easier. The implementation of our agreement gets us closer to ending the dirty and dangerous fumes spewed by cruise ships idling in the Red Hook port, which is good news for Brooklynites and good news for our environment.

"For two years, I worked with the community and my colleagues in government, including Congresswoman Velazquez and Councilman Lander, to push for the agreement that's made shore power possible.  By implementing the agreement, the Port Authority will make New York a leader as the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal becomes the first on the East Coast to adopt this cleaner, healthier technology.

As the statement notes, this will be the first terminal in New York and on the entire East Coast to use shore power - despite this life-saving and environmentally friendly technology being used extensively on the West Coast; first being used over 10 years ago in Juneau, Alaska; used by the US Navy for over 50 years; and implemented in many other parts of the world.

Hopefully, the Brooklyn plan will set a precedent for the wider use of shore power by all types of ocean-going ships in our city's ports - the 3rd largest in the country - and elsewhere on the East Coast. Then these carcinogenic and asthma inducing emissions created by the idling ships can be eliminated and the resultant health and environmental benefits shared by even more of our city and country's residents, especially our most vulnerable - the elderly, kids with asthma, low-income communities, etc.

But, for now, we can be happy that in 2014 - as well as looking forward to the full implementation of the Affordable Care Act, also approved yesterday - the big cruise ships visiting Brooklyn will be turning off their engines, plugging-in to our electrical grid, and our port-side communities can look forward to breathing a little easier.

.

Port Authority's Shore Power Question: Is It Worth Spending $4M to Save Brooklyn Residents $9M Per Year in Health Costs?

Photo: Joshua Kristal, South Brooklyn Post

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey acts in mysterious ways. I found that out a few years back when I attended a Port Authority Board Meeting that was deliberating the expansion of the Red Hook Container Terminal and the relocation of Phoenix Beverages to the Brooklyn waterfront. Phoenix were being given use of Pier 11 on the Atlantic Basin as well as Pier 7 at the bottom of Atlantic Avenue. The meeting called for public comment, but, as the meeting progressed, I realized that my comments and those of others in our community - many who wished to express their worries about pollution, congestion, and the exclusion of meaningful public access - would only be allowed after the board had already made its decision. After the gavel had come down. Literally (my post here). It was weird, to say the least, and obviously frustrating considering the matter on which they were supposedly "deliberating" was one that involved publicly owned land (as is the case with all Port Authority controlled land), and considering the PA itself is a public entity.

Since then I've realized that the Port Authority has also been willing to throw sand in the gears of many proposed people-friendly improvements to the use of Red Hook's waterfront. In 2009, when PortSide New York and the New York Economic Development Corporation facilitated the visit of tens of historic "Dutch Flat Bottomed Boats" to our neighborhood, creating a mass mooring in the Atlantic Basin and providing a great event for the visiting vessels as well as for our community, my family and I walked to the end of Pioneer Street, through to the gates in the mesh fence to Pier 11, where the the continuing road meets the water, and we joined the hundreds of people who jumped at the opportunity to visit this "blue space", the historic Atlantic Basin - the protected harbor that is nestled behind the cruise terminal - which is an underutilized neighborhood treasure (my post here). After talking to a few of the Dutch captains, however, it was clear that the Port Authority had been quite an obstacle in the planning of this unique gathering. One captain described arduous red tape, the changing requirements and conditions to be met that almost scuttled the whole event. No wonder we haven't seen anything like it since. Not only that, we've seen PortSide and its vessel, the Mary A. Whalen, being thrown out of their promised home on the Atlantic Basin and Pier 11, with the Port Authority hardly being helpful with accommodating them temporarily, or allowing them the opportunity to raise funds to remain operational. It's hard to get people interested in your venture when your ship is only accessible to Port Authority authorized personnel, on Port Authority restricted property, and only 5 at a time! A Port Authority spokesperson actually compared PortSide's presence at the Red Hook piers to "having a gypsy camp at Terminal 2 at JFK Airport " - nice!

And then there's the plan to bring shore power to the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal.

Under the leadership of Chris Ward, the Port Authority had committed funds to create the infrastructure required to allow for this life saving practice to become operational at the Red Hook terminal. Mr. Ward, in testimony given to the Public Service Commission, cited a study that prompted this statement: "We estimate that the annual health benefits emissions reductions arising from a switch from on board generation to shore power at the BCT, adjusted for Kings County, approaches $9 Million" (full statement here, my post here). In other words, as things are right now, the annual monetized health cost to Brooklyn residents of these cruise ships is estimated to be $9 million. There were many similar statements from supporters of this plan, all calling attention to the environmental and health benefits it would bring. However, there were a lot of pieces that needed to fall into place to make this happen, and, finally, this time last year the announcement was made that the deal was done - with the participation of, and commitment from the Port Authority, the Environmental Protection Agency, the NYCEDC, the New York Power Authority, Carnival Cruises and the support of every representative of our community - shore power would be coming to Brooklyn in 2012.

And since then we've been waiting.

What's the hold up? Well, after a while, hearing no news and seeing no physical evidence of anything happening at the terminal, I started getting a little nervous. I asked someone who was close to one of our 'electeds' if we had anything to worry about. That person's take was that the deal was secure - unless there was a change in leadership at the Port Authority. And then, in October last year, Chris Ward left the Port Authority.

A few weeks back, there was the troubling news that that the Port Authority was balking at the revised cost of creating the shore power infrastructure at the terminal. They had okayed the original investment, but were questioning the extra amount that would be required.

How much were we talking about here? According to this Brooklyn Eagle story (here), the shortfall was $4.3 Million.

When the Port Authority has already made statements saying that this plan would save Brooklyn residents $9 Million per year - let me say that again - PER YEAR - in health costs. When those health costs include, as stated by the EPA and many others, asthma, cancer, premature death, lung and heart disease. When those who disproportionately bear this burden are our most vulnerable - our children (Red Hook's kids already have 40% asthma rates), the elderly, minority and low-income communities. Why is this even a question?

Yes, the Port Authority is having budget problems, but on that matter they're talking about numbers in the billions of dollars. So to quibble over this relatively small amount, when the savings are so obvious and precious (we're talking about our kids here) - and knowing that the added investment pays for itself in 6 months - it seems very short sighted to be delaying this plan.

Our representatives in government agree, and many of them, according to recent articles in the Brooklyn Eagle, and the Daily News, have written to the Port Authority urging them to make good on their commitment to see this plan through to completion. Those representatives include Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, Borough President Marty Markowitz, State Senator Daniel Squadron, Assemblywoman Joan Millman, Council members Brad Lander and Sara Gonzalez.

They all agree - the Port Authority should get this done.

The sad fact is this plan in Brooklyn should only be the first, small (easy!) step in implementing the use of shore power throughout the Ports of New York and New Jersey, to be used by all kinds of ships - cruise and container. Our ports are the 3rd largest in the country and are laggards in matters of emissions reduction compared to our West Coast counterparts. In John Kaltenstein's 2010 article, "The Big Apple's Big Shipping Problem", he writes that creating a port-wide shore power program in New York would be like "taking the equivalent of 7.8 million cars off the streets", according to the Environmental Defense Fund, and "ridding the air of 7,200 metric tonnes of nitrogen oxide, 570 metric tonnes of fine particulate matter, and 4,600 metric tonnes of sulphur dioxide", according to the EPA's 2002 numbers. (These are the very substances that are threatening the health of our residents, and have been recently found to be more harmful than previously thought - stories here and here.)

In these matters, the Port Authority is truly dawdling.

And concerning in the plan in Brooklyn, which has been described as a "no-brainer", do they really need more convincing?

Benefits of Shore Power:

• Ships stop idling in port - you know, "Idle-Free NYC"?
  
• No more burning of extra-dirty bunker fuel, creating carcinogenic emissions right next to dense residential populations
• Huge reduction or elimination* of dangerous SOx, NOx and Particulates
• Huge reduction or elimination* of greenhouse gasses, including CO2
• Huge reduction or elimination* of soot or "black carbon"
  
• Health burden lifted from vulnerable residents, especially kids with asthma, the elderly, low-income and minority communities near ports
• Reduction of cancer, lung disease, heart disease, premature death, etc.
  
• Cruise operators contribute to local economy by purchasing electricity from local, domestic suppliers, rather than dirty fuel from multinational oil companies
• Reduction of noise and vibration on board ship (relief for ship workers)
• As cruise ship visits increase in number, as is predicted by the Port Authority and the NYCEDC, the pollution will not increase, thereby making the investment even more beneficial
  

* These substances will be eliminated if the electricity is supplied by "green" sources. In the case of the Brooklyn plan, the power would be supplied by the NY Power Authority which generates a significant proportion of its electricity from Niagara Falls hydroelectric - emissions free!



So - c'mon Port Authority. Make good on your commitment. Keep your promise to our community. Let's finally make the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal idle-free.

.

Deal For Shore Power at Brooklyn Cruise Terminal ..... is DONE!

The great news came today, via a press release from Mayor Bloomberg (here), and articles in the New York Times and South Brooklyn Post, that a deal that will allow cruise ships visiting the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook to plug in to shore power is done.

The deal between the NYC Economic Development Corporation and the New York Power Authority creates a rate of supply for the electricity that the ships will use for their on-board power while in port, instead of idling their extra-dirty diesel engines, as they currently do. This electricity rate will be set for 5 years, and, presumably, by that time, the slow moving Public Service Commission will have created a permanent power rate for the ships and this pollution mitigating practice can continue.

The deal for the rate of electricity supply was the missing piece in the multi-part plan to make the use of shore power in Brooklyn a reality. The Port Authority, aided by an EPA Diesel Emission Reduction grant, had committed funds for the building of the appropriate infrastructure, the cruise operators, Carnival, had committed to retrofitting their ships to accept shore power, and basically everyone else was "on board". The sticking point was the rate of electricity supply to the ships, and a case in the Public Service Commission requesting the creation of a permanent "shore power tariff" had been stuck in some sort of limbo for over two years. So, even though the PSC case is still not resolved, this 5 year deal allows for the shore power plan to finally ... and thankfully ... move forward.

The announcement today was the result of the work of many, including the previously mentioned NYCEDC, the Port Authority, Carnival, the EPA, the NY Power Authority, the Mayor and City of New York and many of our representatives in government.

But it should be remembered that it was the community that forced this issue into the public realm and onto the politicians' agenda. It was our residents who pushed for this improvement to their quality of life. We were acting in response to our concern about the negative affects of these dangerous yet avoidable substances, contained in the smokestack emissions of the ships, on the health of our residents, our neighbors - particularly to our most vulnerable - children, the elderly, minorities and low-income populations, people with lung disease and asthma.

There was a lot of good will shown in today's announcement, and a lot of people were speaking and writing passionately about the benefits this plan will bring to our neighborhood and beyond, and much congratulation was given to these different agencies for the the great work they have done in making this happen.

But 6 years ago, when the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal opened, I'm sorry to say, there was not a single mention or word of acknowledgement from anyone - politicians, government agencies, Borough Presidents, anyone - about the negative health effects that the newly visiting ships would be bringing to our portside neighborhoods. There was not a single line in the New York Times nor the Brooklyn Papers about the dangers of port pollution - from ships or other sources. Nothing about the tons of SOx, NOx and Particulate Matter that would soon be spewing into our neighborhoods' air and into our residents' lungs. When I wrote my first letter to the Mayor in 2005, asking whether the ships that would soon be calling my young family's neighborhood home would be "cold ironing" - i.e. using shore power instead of idling their dirty diesel engines, as I had read was being done in many ports on the West Coast and elsewhere in the world - the response from the City was, "No" - this pollution mitigating and life saving technology was not being considered for Red Hook.

After a number years of just talking about "cold ironing", talking to my neighbors, writing emails to friends and politicians, going to Community Board and other meetings and talking about this stuff, etc. there was still little discussion about cleaning up the pollution from the ships - at least from anyone who had any power to do something about it. Finally, in 2009, after the expansion of the operations of the Container Terminal and after the concern in our neighborhood about port related pollution was starting to register, the Port Authority came to our neighborhood and said they were committing to establishing shore power infrastructure at the Cruise Terminal. It was good news - but the representative from the Port Authority told me he had only recently, "in the last year or so", heard about "cold ironing". Really? The Port Authority had heard about "shore power" 4 years after I had first read about it, 9 years after the first US cruise ship cold ironing port in Juneau, Alaska, and decades after the Navy had been using the practice? That was worrying.

It was around this time that I started writing this blog in an effort to share some of the information I was discovering about this issue. It was also an attempt to push the case for shore power at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal and elsewhere on our waterfront. But this was just one little blog, and to really get the shore power plan to happen there needed to be political will, and pressure from the major press. There was very little forthcoming. The Brooklyn Papers wrote a piece here and there, the the NY Times did a piece, but the coverage was pretty thin. It was frustrating.

However, there were more and more people and organizations in the community becoming aware of this matter - the Red Hook Civic Association, Red Hook Economic Development, Red Hook Initiative, COWNA (including the indefatigueable Diana Schneider - an early advocate for this cause. Thanks Diana!) , Community Board 6, and more - and they were making their concerns known, and that's when things started to happen. Armed with facts and statements made to the Public Service Commission from the EPA (see the sidebar of this blog) and elsewhere regarding the health impacts these emissions were having - cancer, asthma, heart and lung disease and more - the community started to drag some politicians into fighting this fight on our behalf. The newly elected Councilmember Brad Lander was a standout, taking this issue on as one of his highest priorities. The same was the case for Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, and soon State Senators Daniel Squadron and Velmanette Montgomery, Assemblywoman Joan Millman as well as Councilmembers Sara Gonzalez and Steven Levin were on board.

Despite further testimony from the Port Authority supporting the creation of a shore power rate, citing $9 million per year in health care savings to Brooklyn residents resulting from a switch to shore power, the case at the PSC was still stuck in the mud, but these representatives started letting them and the City know that that it wasn't good enough.

Despite the real seriousness of "port pollution" issues, and the situation in Red Hook, coverage in the New York media was still non-existent (negligent, in my opinion), with not a single story written in over a year. However, in November, 2010, the newly launched South Brooklyn Post took up the matter and did an excellent story (here) on the stalled plan to bring shore power to Brooklyn and about this blog's coverage of the issue.

Earlier this year, on a cold morning in January, many of these previously mentioned representatives staged a protest rally at the cruise terminal hoping to force the negotiations forward and to get a resolution to the impasse that was stalling this plan. Again, the South Brooklyn Post covered the story, and thankfully - due to the high profile political presence - a lot of other media outlets covered the rally as well (my post here).

It seemed to help.

The City's Committee on Waterfronts scheduled a hearing on shore power, proposing a resolution supporting the creation of a shore power tariff and urging the PSC to create it, urgently. The hearing was postponed (twice) but the message was clear. A long term plan is needed, and this shore power plan needs to go forward - now.

It was clear for a while that the NYCEDC, who had built the terminal, and the NY Power Authority were working towards a deal to make the shore power plan happen - regardless of the outcome or glacial pace of the PSC case. The pressure from the community, the advocacy of the politicians and, finally, the scrutiny of the press was requiring a solution, even if it was short term.

It seems that Mayor Bloomberg, who had so far kept a low profile on this issue, was also keen to get this done.

Then came the news today.

It was a good day. The Mayor, the representatives, agencies and other parties involved should be congratulated on their efforts in getting this done. Everyone should be feeling good about this.

But, something tells me that if we hadn't "kicked up a fuss", none of this would have happened.

Even though it's 6 years, many tons of unnecessary and harmful pollutants and many blog posts late, ..... this is still good ... no ...

... GREAT news.