"Tug Boat Parking Lot" at the Atlantic Basin?

Photo: NY Post

Did you hear the news, recently reported in the New York Post (here), that the City was putting out an RFP (Request For Proposal) for an operator to create a "massive parking lot for tugs" inside the Atlantic Basin on Red Hook's waterfront? For those unfamiliar with where and what the Atlantic Basin is, it's the historic "harbor" that lies behind (inland of) the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. This body of water has been designated as the future home for PortSide New York, who's ship, the Mary A. Whalen, will be moored in the basin permanently. PortSide will also occupy part of the Pier 11 shed (currently used by Phoenix Beverages for recycling and garbage), and have the use of 600 feet of Atlantic Basin water frontage. For anyone who attended any of PortSide's excellent programs held last summer, you know what a great addition their permanent presence in the Atlantic basin will be to our neighborhood, and what a great use of this underused "blue space" this promises to be. The Brooklyn Greenway will also run along the basin, connecting more people to this unique yet underused waterfront location, right at the foot of Red Hook's residential streets.

With these proposed future uses in mind, it was of concern to me that the City and the NYCEDC, who play a large hand in the planning of our waterfront, have put out this RFP without acknowledging the fact that bringing tugboats to the Atlantic Basin - up to 15, as the NY Post article states - will also bring more pollution right into the heart of our neighborhood.

My problem with this plan mostly stems from the fact that the City and EDC have had a history of bringing new activities to our waterfront that impact our neighborhood and its residents with harmful pollution, but never seem to seriously concern themselves with meaningfully mitigating the pollution - that is until the residents discover the negative health impacts they are being subjected to and start to voice their concerns. This was certainly the case with the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, where the visiting ships have been continuously idling while in port, spewing their dangerous fumes into our neighborhood's air for the last 6 years, when they could have been plugging in to shore power and eliminating the negative health impacts they have been needlessly imposing on our community, especially our most vulnerable - kids, the elderly, people with lung disease including asthma, minority and low-income communities, etc.

The City's indifference to the negative health impacts that their plans were having on our residents was also apparent when they facilitated the relocation of Phoenix Beverages to our neighborhood where there was some long term plan (taking over 7 years) to reduce the impact of the emissions from the 200 truck trips that Phoenix was bringing to Red Hook, but there was no acknowledgement that this new business would also be bringing more ships, more emissions, more sulfur, particulates, etc., more resultant negative health impacts to our residents, and nothing was being done to address those impacts.

As with the Cruise Terminal, neither the City nor the Port Authority who operate the terminals were required to do an Environmental Impact Study - because of current land use rules, they can basically do what they like.

This is why I have an issue with the tugs. Tugs currently use dirty diesel similar to the stuff that cruise ships and container ships burn. It's high in sulfur and creates particulates and other dangerous substances that are harmful to human health.

Don't just take my word for it.

"Pollution from the diesel-powered tugboats and other port emission sources has caused negative health effects on the surrounding population, including cancer and respiratory illnesses." (article here)

And this from a recent study - (story here)

"Tugs emit nearly a gram of soot per kilogram of fuel burned — twice as much as any other vessel type, the authors found. The high levels point to their low-quality fuel — a thick, black tar left over from crude oil after the gasoline and kerosene have been removed. Engine age and maintenance also play a role.

Tugboats have a disproportionate impact on air quality because they travel within ports, emitting potentially harmful particles near populous urban areas, according to the authors.

“Tugboats are a huge source of black carbon that may be under-reported or not reported at all in emissions inventories compiled by ports,” said Lack."

These are reasons to be concerned about the introduction of these new sources of pollution into the heart of our neighborhood where residents are already bearing the burden of pollution from other sources in the port and elsewhere.

If the City really wants to bring tugs to the Atlantic Basin, why wouldn't they use the opportunity to set an example for "green" practices, by requiring the use of ultra low sulphur fuel by the tugs that would be using this location - a location that is tucked into a dense residential population? Why couldn't the city put out an RFP for a "hybrid tug" operator using the clean green vessels like those that are being put to use in California and elsewhere (story here). Why wouldn't the city use this opportunity to give substance to some of the environmentally friendly rhetoric about "greening the ports" that emanates from the Mayor's office?

It's certainly the case that over the next 5 years or so, tugs and other vessels will have to use cleaner diesel in US coastal waters, including within our ports, due to regulations coming from the IMO (International Maritime Organization). These new rules are being implemented in response to the real negative health effects that ship pollution is having on our population - both on the coast and inland - including cancers, asthma, heart and lung disease, premature mortality and more.

However, when shipping switches to this new, cleaner fuel, it will reduce - not eliminate - these harmful emissions, so in areas where shipping and dense populations operate in close proximity, as in portside communities such as Red Hook, it's important that port and shipping practices are made as clean as possible. That's been the case in California, where the two largest ports in the country - the Ports of LA and Long Beach - abut dense populations, and as a result the operation of those ports involve the cleanest possible practices - cold ironing (the use of shore power), clean electric cranes and port machinery, a robust clean truck program and more. In California, when the agencies and representatives in government, spurred on by activism in the community, started to address the issue of port pollution in the early 2000s, they decided that where dense populations were impacted by the ports' close proximity, the response must be as robust as possible. Nearly a decade later, those ports and their surrounding populations have been reaping the benefits - in their environment and health. These strategies have the added benefit of reducing the ports' (and our country's) reliance on oil and significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

This should also be the case in Red Hook, not to mention the entire Ports of New York and New Jersey, which are the 3rd largest in the country.

In New York, as on the West Coast, shipping business is growing. Where there is more shipping, there is more pollution, so it's important that our dense portside populations are not impacted unfairly by this pollution and it's important that, going forward, the best possible practices are pursued at the ports in our city, and with the ships that visit them, so as to offset this increased impact.

That's my point about the tug boats presence in the Atlantic Basin. Why should we accept more unmitigated pollution, courtesy of the tugs - especially when we already have unresolved issues with cruise ships, container ships, trucks and more? Why shouldn't we expect that the City and the EDC sort out their previous mess before bringing more problems to resolve? Why should anything that the City brings to our neighborhood add to our residents' pollution burden?

That's just going backwards.

Yes, the Atlantic Basin should be re-activated. Yes, the activities of PortSide New York are a great example of what can be done in this unique "Blue Space". Yes, there is a place for commercial vessels, and tie ups - ferries, charter boats, etc. - and, hey, whatever happened to the plan for the Governors Island Ferry in the Atlantic Basin?

But to create a "massive tugboat parking lot"? To inject more pollution into our neighborhood's air from what is known to be a significant contributor to port pollution - i.e. tugboats - without having a plan to mitigate it? That is unacceptable.

Just as we're getting something done with cruise ship pollution with the seemingly imminent, but long fought plan to get them to "plug in" to shore power, why should our residents be asked to accept the same sort of dangerous unmitigated pollution from a different source?

It just isn't right.

PortSide New York at the Atlantic Basin

"Shore Power Resolution" Hearing Delayed ... Again.

Unfortunately, there was miscommunication about the Committee on Waterfronts' Shore Power Resolution hearing that was was scheduled to have happened this last Tuesday (see my previous post). After the postponement of the hearing last month, I, and others who were invited to testify, were given notice that the hearing had been "tentatively" rescheduled for March 8th. However, it wasn't clear that there would be further confirmation of the hearing (I figured that if we didn't hear otherwise that it was happening, not that it wasn't). So I, and a couple of others, turned up at the hearing to find that a hearing on dredging, not shore power, was taking place. It was a bit of a waste of a day, having missed out on work as a result, but I do understand that some of the responsibility to check the confirmation of the hearing lies with me. However, even the organization that had invited me to testify, the Red Hook Initiative, despite being in communication with those organizing the hearing, weren't aware that the hearing wasn't going to happen. They, too, were left out of the loop on this one.

Slightly annoying.

From speaking to a couple of people involved in this matter, it seems like the reason for this second postponement was due to a yet to be announced agreement that would, in the short term, subsidize the rate of electricity being supplied to the ships, thereby reducing the economic "burden" on the ship operators, Carnival, of plugging in and using electricity, rather than idling their engines and burning extra-dirty diesel (creating carcinogenic and otherwise dangerous emissions) while the ships are in port. This agreement was hinted at by a spokesman of Mayor Bloomberg in this recent South Brooklyn Post article, here, where the representative, Andrew Brent, is quoted as saying that the pending deal "would benefit all of the parties involved, and we're all working to finalize one."

This is obviously good news, and the deal, if secured, should ensure that there is a workable, quickly implementable short term solution to the frustrating stalemate that has been delaying the plan to get the cruise ships to plug in to shore power at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook.

I don't see, however, how the news of this interim deal (even if it's in place for a number of years), takes away the urgency of getting a real, long term solution in place. That's exactly what this "Shore Power Resolution" was hoping to spur.

The resolution was urging the Public Service Commission, which has been dragging its feet on this case for two years, to finally create a "shore power tariff" - a special rate of supply of electricity - that would be supplied by Con Ed and would allow the ships to plug in at the Brooklyn terminal. This would be a permanent tariff, so it could be the piece that puts in place the long term solution that everyone has been waiting for.

This "shore power tariff", if created, could also set the precedent for other uses of shore power and the practice of "cold ironing" (ships turning off their idling engines) throughout the ports of New York and New Jersey. The Port Authority has said, in addition to its use at the Brooklyn location, that it would also like to bring "shore power" to the cruise ships visiting the Manhattan Cruise Terminals, and has outlined plans to create a new "cold ironing" berth at the Howland Hook Container Terminal in Staten Island. Presumably, these plans are all contingent on the creation of a "shore power tariff".

Adding impetus to this matter, there was also the news, this week, that the Ports of New York and New Jersey increased their business by 16% last year. A spokesman for the International Longshoremen's Association in Newark is quoted in this New York Times article, here, as saying, "We're doing super great". In an economy that's still struggling to find its feet, this is good news, but with the booming business, there comes more ship movements, more idling while in port and - unfortunately - more pollution and more people bearing the burden of the resultant negative health impacts - in cancer, asthma, heart disease and more. That's why it's so important that the Port Authority keeps driving towards 'greening' the operations of their ports. The use of "shore power" for ships should be a big part of any plan to do so, and the creation of this "shore power tariff" would surely create the incentive for the building the infrastructure to allow all types of ships to plug in - container, cruise and others - as has been the case on the West Coast and elsewhere.

The short-term solution, referred to by the Mayor's representative, won't do a lot (as far as I can see) to address this "bigger picture" issue - i.e. pushing the Public Service Commission to create a shore power tariff, so that the cruise ships can plug in at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, while also setting a precedent and encouraging the expansion of this life-saving and green-house gas reducing practice throughout the city's ports.

The "Shore Power Resolution" is pushing for this big picture, long term solution. (Read it at the end of this post).

So, I say, let's not delay this hearing any longer.

The Public Service Commission has already shown that it is capable of moving at a glacial pace.

I don't see why the City's Committee on Waterfronts should be mimicking them.

.

City "Shore Power Resolution" Hearing - Tuesday, March 8th, 1pm - Open to the Public .... More Shore Power News.

Disney ship leaving Shore Power berth - photo credit: Port of Los Angeles

The City's Committee on Waterfronts has rescheduled its hearing on the proposed "Shore Power Resolution" for this Tuesday, March 8th at 1pm, 250 Broadway, 16th Floor. The hearing is open to the Public.

See one of my previous posts (here) for the details of the resolution which has been proposed by many of our City's representatives (I've copied it in its entirety at the end of the post). Basically, this resolution urges the Public Service Commission (PSC) to set a "shore power tariff" - a rate of electricity supply - that would then be offered by Con Edison to allow cruise ships to plug into "shore power" while in port at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook, instead of idling their extra-dirty diesel engines, as they currently do.

The adoption of the recommendations of this resolution would bring great benefits to the neighborhoods surrounding the port - Red Hook, Carroll Gardens, Cobble Hill and beyond - both in improvements in air quality and in the resultant health benefits. The EPA states that smokestack emissions from ships are particularly harmful to our most vulnerable - children, the elderly, minority communities and people with lung disease - and the Port Authority has made statements in testimony to the PSC that estimates the yearly savings in health costs to Brooklyn residents resulting from the switch to shore power at the Cruise Terminal "approaches $9 Million".

A LONG TERM SOLUTION

The setting of the shore power tariff seems the be the preferred long term solution to finally getting the cruise ships to plug in at the Brooklyn Terminal. There have been arguments - also made in this blog - that the cruise ship operators are getting off pretty easy in this deal. After all, they're doing very well, paying little tax, and their business is breaking records. Also, in the long term they'll be having to deal with a higher price for cleaner diesel when the Emissions Control Area is implemented around the coasts of the US and Canada.

However, it seems like to get this done, absent some form of legislation that would require the use of shore power (as is the case in some West Coast ports), this special rate of electricity needs to be created to actually get the cruise ships to "plug in".

There is some logic to this path being taken. If a shore power rate is created for Brooklyn, it should set the precedent for the use of this technology anywhere in the Ports of New York and New Jersey. The Port Authority has stated that it has plans to create a "cold ironing" berth at the Howland Hook Container Terminal in Staten Island. Surely they'll need a "shore power tariff" in place to make that plan feasible. The EPA stated in testimony to the PSC that "implementation of an appropriate Shore Power Tariff in New York City would provide an impetus for ship owners to invest in ship-side Shore Power equipment and for widespread use of this technology in other ports on the East Coast."

That would be a very good thing.

SHORT TERM SOLUTION - via Mayor Bloomberg?

Hopefully this resolution will get the result it seeks for the long term solution to this problem. However, the PSC moves very slowly, and in the short term, we still need to get the ships to plug in so these dangerous emissions can be taken out of our neighborhoods' air.

On that front, there is this news - under-reported as it is - from the South Brooklyn Post, reporting that Mayor Bloomberg says there is a deal in the works for a short-term solution for the Brooklyn cruise ship pollution problem.

The article, "Bloomberg Writes In", by Lisa M. Collins states -

Andrew Brent, a spokesman for Mayor Mike Bloomberg, contacted South Brooklyn Post to say that a deal is in the works to solve the major air pollution problem on the coast of Red Hook. Brent was responding to a series of articles in South Brooklyn Post revealing the fact that Carnival Cruise Lines, which netted $6 billion in profits over the last three years, is at a stalemate with city and state officials over a $1 to $2 million a year electricity bill that would clean Brooklyn’s air and the air quality over the New York harbor.

“A deal would benefit all of the parties involved, and we’re all working to finalize one,” Brent wrote in an email.

The South Brooklyn Post also reports that Port Authority studies reveal that "ships are the No. 1 cause of air pollution in the New York/New Jersey harbor".

WORLD NEWS ON SHORE POWER

In other shore power news around the world, the publication "BunkerWorld" reports that -

"The European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO) and European Community Ship-owners Association (ECSA) have come out in support of a proposed European tax exemption for shoreside power electricity."

The sister publication, "PortWorld", reports on a OECD study, entitled "Environmental Impacts of International Shipping: The Role of Ports". The PortWorld article states -

"The study also said using shoreside electricity should be made mandatory because "unless ships are obliged to use it, they have few incentives to do so."

The study focuses on the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Vancouver, Rotterdam, and Busan."

Meanwhile, the Port of Los Angeles has upgraded one of its shore power facilities to accommodate three different cruise lines, with the ability to "plug in" two ships at a time. Story here and here.

CATCHING UP

It's frustrating to see these shore power incentives and initiatives, whether "sticks" or "carrots", being used elsewhere - on the West Coast and around the world - while we on the East Coast, and in Brooklyn in particular, are still waiting.

We've got a lot of catching up to do.

Hopefully, this new City resolution will be the piece that finally gets all involved to the get this shore power deal done so that we can begin - yes, just begin - to take these harmful, yet totally avoidable, pollutants out of our city's air, and our residents' lungs.

.

City Postpones "Shore Power" Resolution Hearing - Carnival Breaks Records - Residents Left Waiting ...... and Continuing To Pay With Their Health

Photo by Joshua Kristal (edited), South Brooklyn Post

As I noted in the updates to my previous post, the City's Committee on Waterfronts has postponed its hearing on the resolution (here) urging the Public Service Commission to establish a new rate of electricity that would allow the use of shore power for the ships visiting the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook. The new date for the hearing is tentatively set for 1pm., March 8th, at the same location - 250 Broadway, 16th Floor. Open to the public.

While we're waiting - yet again - for further action to be taken on this long awaited plan, I think it's helpful to reflect on a couple of pieces of news that are pertinent to this issue.

I'm pleased to see that the "South Brooklyn Post" is continuing to do a great job of covering the story of the stalled process that is holding up the implementation of the shore power plan in Red Hook. After covering the story of cruise ship pollution when the rest of the city's media was AWOL, and after covering the protest that was held in January that urged the breaking of the impasse that was holding this plan up, this week they did a follow up to their initial story, which was published in November, that went into further detail about the conflict. The most recent article, "Big Money Ignores Brooklyn Air" by Lisa M. Collins, basically asks this question: If Carnival are doing so well right now - making huge profits ($11.3 Billion over the last 5 years, $2 Billion in 2010) while paying very little in tax (1.1%, in fact) - why is it such an imposition to ask them to pay a little more, a tiny percentage of their Queen Mary 2 sized profits, to pay for the ongoing costs of using clean, green-house gas reducing electricity while in port, instead of idling their engines and using the dirtiest form of diesel on the planet, the burning of which spews carcinogenic and asthma inducing substances into our city's air, and into our kids' lungs?

This article clearly puts at least some of the onus for the resolution of the shore power stalemate on the shoulders of the cruise operators, Carnival.

And it's only fair.

You know, for the most part, in my writing on this blog, I've tried not to demonize the cruise ships, their operators and billionaire owners. In full disclosure, I've worked on cruise ships in the past as a musician, I've taken a cruise with my family, I've enjoyed the cruising experience on the whole and haven't had any particular animosity towards them. When the cruise terminal opened at the end of my young family's residential street, I, like most of my neighbors, wasn't against it. We all thought it could bring a little more vitality to our waterfront and our neighborhood. However, after that "vitality" never materialized, greatly due to the expedient and shoddy planning of the terminal and its site (without shore power), and since finding out more about the harmful emissions from the visiting ships and generally about the cruise industry and their practices - particularly their patchy environmental record - I've obviously become more ambivalent about it.

Still, the reality is that recently many of the cruise ship operators have been trying to clean up their environmental act - at least a little. (See Friends of the Earth's 2010 "Cruise Report Card" here). For example, some have been reducing or eliminating practices like the disposal of rubbish and waste (including sewerage) at sea. To their credit, Carnival and others are converting some of their ships to accept shore power, as is the case with a number of the Carnival ships that are based on the West Coast, so that they can eliminate the practice of idling in port. Unfortunately, none of the cruise lines, as far as I can see, are volunteering to switch to the use of cleaner low-sulfur fuel while out at sea, but the ships that cruise in the continental waters of the US and Canada will ultimately be required to burn cleaner fuel in those waters, due to the future implementation of the North American Emissions Control Area.

I get it. They're a business. They're just trying to make money, and according to the City of New York, the cruise industry is bringing money to the city and benefiting us all.

But, really, in an environment where the cruise operators are doing so well, and where there is clearly the ability on their part to pay a fair portion of the cost of using shore power, why are Carnival being so recalcitrant?

How well are Carnival doing? Well, apart from the facts about their profits (and miniscule taxes) that are noted above and in this NY Times article (here), there is this recent article in USA Today (here) that notes this staggering, record-breaking information -

Carnival Cruise Lines said it set a one-week reservations record, booking 165,308 customers between Feb. 7-13, eclipsing its previous one-week reservations record set nearly four years ago.

The line said bookings were at "unprecedented levels" across its fleet.

It's good times for Carnival. But, while many of the parties involved in this deal to "plug in" the cruise ships at Brooklyn seem to be making some concessions to "get it done", Carnival hardly seems to be coming to the party.

The New York City Economic Development Corporation, the City agency that built the new cruise terminal and brought the polluting ships to our neighborhood, has been trying to strike a deal with the New York Power Authority to subsidize the rate of electricity supplied to the ships to make the practice more economically viable. The Port Authority has allocated $12 Million for the building of the shore power infrastructure. The EPA, through its Diesel Emissions Reduction (DERA) program, has granted nearly $3 Million for the same. (Side note: Worryingly, for proponents of cleaner ports and those wanting to reduce the health burden of port pollution on our most vulnerable, DERA was given no mention in the recently released US budget proposal). Our legislators are pushing for an end to the "idling ships and idling negotiations", as they said at the recent protest, and with the NY City Council Shore Power resolution, they are urging the Public Service Commission to establish a new "shore power tariff" to allow the cruise ships, in the long term, to "plug in" without economic disincentive.

A lot is being offered.

So far, Carnival's only commitment has been to retrofit their ships to accept shore power, at a cost of $1 - 2 Million per ship. That sounds like a decent offer on the surface, but aren't Carnival getting off pretty easily? They've already done many of these conversions on their other ships, and isn't it likely that they'd have to do this with them all anyway because many ports, including some on the West Coast, are making it mandatory to for cruise ships to plug in while in port. Also, as I've mentioned before, there is the coming regulation that would force ships of all types to use cleaner, more expensive diesel in US waters, so the cost differential for using shore power will eventually be far less - a further incentive for its broad use. Additionally, as our cities and nation as a whole tries to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, and with the EPA playing a role in regulating these emissions, (despite push-back in the Republican House), the use of shore power will, no doubt, be an obvious and effective method being encouraged to reduce these significant emissions from all types of ships while in port, while reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.

My point is, given these factors, and with all of this news about Carnival and the cruise industry as a whole doing so well, why shouldn't we expect them to do their bit to get this shore power deal done - soon?

It's troubling enough to know that Carnival, like many cruise lines, is using every loophole they can to minimize their taxes and reduce their operating costs - like being registered in Panama, or not having to comply with US labor laws - while benefiting greatly from the tax payer-funded services and infrastructure of the cities they visit, like New York. It's hard enough to hear Carnival cry "poor" and unable to pay for shore power when they're operating luxury cruise ships like the Queen Mary 2 and doing business at a record breaking, "unprecedented" pace - in a recession!

While they're getting away with all of that, isn't it at least fair to ask them to give back a little to the communities that they call their neighbors?

What's at stake here isn't just Carnival's bottom line. It's the health of the residents of the communities in which they operate. As I wrote in one of my previous posts, when I criticized the callousness of the way Con Edison and the Public Service Commission were weighing up the "cost" and "fairness" of establishing a shore power rate, this isn't just about money.

You can certainly count the costs of the extra pollution that the ships are bringing in monetary terms. The Port Authority did this in their recent testimony to the Public Service Commission, stating that the avoidable cruise ship pollution was costing Brooklyn residents an estimated $9 Million per year in monetized health costs.

But it's not just about the money.

It's about the boy on our block, a friend of my 7 year old son, who is suffering from increasingly regular bouts of asthma, often ending in a visit to the emergency room.

It's about the three kids in the Red Hook Houses that died from asthma attacks just last year.

It's about the two women on our block, and more in our community, who have recently developed cancers.

It's about the 40% childhood asthma rate, and cancer clusters that occur in our neighborhoods.

Can Carnival - and the others who are dragging their feet - tell these people that the ship emissions are playing no role in these negative health outcomes? Can Carnival tell our residents that they are doing their business and earning their massive profits at no cost to their neighbors - our community, our residents, particularly our most vulnerable?

At a time when there's a lot of talk about shared sacrifice, I think it's clear that our community has done its fair share. We've been bearing the burden of the many hundreds of tons of new pollution that has been emanating from the ships since they started calling Red Hook home in 2006, all in the name of "economic development".

Now it's time for those, like Carnival, who are benefiting from this economic development and are doing very well, to do their bit to make sure our residents don't have to carry this cost any more - in their health or otherwise.

It's Carnival's turn - even if it means taking a small hit to their ever-growing profits.

.

Council of the City of New York To Hold Hearing on Shore Power Resolution, while Con Edison asks, "Who Should Pay?" (NEW UPDATE - HEARING POSTPONED!)

UPDATE (2/14/11): HEARING POSTPONED - TENTATIVELY RESCHEDULED FOR MARCH 8TH.

UPDATE: An article in the Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance's excellent on-line publication, "Waterwire", titled, "CITY COUNCIL ADDS TO CLAMOR CALLING FOR ELECTRICAL SHORE POWER IN BROOKLYN" (story here), notes that the City Council's Committee on Waterfronts hearing on the shore power resolution is open to the public.

Details: Thursday, February 17, 1pm, 250 Broadway, 16th Floor.
............
In my last post, I wrote about the squabbling that continues to stall the plan to bring shore power to the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook, Brooklyn.

This squabbling centers around the debate about who should pay for the added cost of powering the ships by using shore generated electricity compared to the cost of burning the cheapest and dirtiest form of diesel (bunker fuel) to idle their engines while in port, as the cruise ships (and every other cruise and container ship visiting the Ports of NY and NJ) currently do.

There are those that think that Carnival, the operators of the cruise ships, who are making huge profits (while paying very little tax), should just "cough up" and pay the added cost of using electricity. It's been asserted that this is only fair because there is coming regulation that will eventually create an Emissions Control Area (ECA) around the continental waters of the US and Canada that would stipulate that ships had to use a cleaner form of diesel in those waters, and therefore while idling in port. This fuel will be more expensive, and so the difference between paying current rates of electricity, as supplied by Con Ed in Brooklyn's case, and using the cleaner, more expensive fuel would be negligible, according to many - including a commenter on my last post. So the argument is, the ships should pay for the clean, green-house gas and harmful emissions reducing electricity now, because they'll just have to use the more expensive fuel in the future.

The alternate argument is that Con Ed should supply a cheaper rate of electricity so as not to create an economic deterrent to the ships' operators for the use of shore power. This is a strategy that cities on the West Coast have taken to incentivize the use of shore power with all types of ships in many of their ports, including ones that Carnival cruise ships use now.

Con Edison has not been willing, so far, to go along with this idea. This is why there has been this drawn out process at the Public Service Commission regarding a case that has been requesting the creation of a special "tariff", or rate of supply of electricity, which would specifically address the requirements of the cruise ships. The argument has been that the ships would be creating new business for Con Ed, business that they would not otherwise have, and that the unique needs of the ships - i.e., plugging in for short periods (12 or so hours at a time), and their ability to generate their own power if there was any interruption of shore power supply, etc. - warrants the creation of a special reduced rate tariff.

There have been many supporting this idea.

In their original testimony to the Public Service Commission, the EPA made important statements about the harmful health impacts of ship emissions (see them on the side bar of this blog), and made these further points supporting the establishment of a "shore power tariff" -

• e. Implementation of a shore power tariff is consistent with economic development in New York City.
• f. Implementation of an appropriate Shore Power Tariff in New York City would provide an impetus for ship owners to invest in ship-side Shore Power equipment and for widespread use of this technology in other ports on the East Coast.
• g. None of the Company's tariff's accurately account for the unique service characteristics of ships that dock in New York City.

There have been others making similar points - from the Port Authority to many of our elected officials - some who have made their argument in written testimony to the Public Service Commission in support of the establishment of the new tariff.

However, the Public Service Commission - over a year after hearing these arguments - has yet to act, and in a statement made by their staff, quoted in a recent NY Times "Questions About New York" column by Michael Pollock (here), the PSC claims that "the way Con Edison’s delivery rates are currently structured posed “neither a barrier to, nor an unwarranted incentive for” the kind of electrical facilities shore-based power would need."

Not exactly encouraging.

In that column, in a section that deals with a question about the stalled shore power plan, there is also a quote from Con Edison that explains their recalcitrance on this matter, stating that they are reluctant to create a new shore power tariff because they are concerned that setting a "special rate" for one group, i.e. the operators of the ships, may unfairly burden another, i.e. homeowners.

“How do you come up with a fair rate that doesn’t burden other customers?” Chanoch Lubling, Con Edison’s vice president of regulatory services, said in an interview. Shore-based power through feeder connections “happens to be a great idea,” he said. “I think the big debate here is who should pay for their cost.”

Unfortunately, the representative from Con Edison doesn't seem to recognize the fact that there is already a cost being paid. It's a cost being borne by the residents of port-side communities such as Red Hook, Carroll Gardens and others. A real health cost.

Nowhere in their equation of "fairness" does Con Ed acknowledge the real health effects that our communities are suffering - in asthma, cancer, heart disease and premature mortality. This burden is being carried by our most vulnerable - children, the elderly, low income and minority communities, people with lung disease - and the Port Authority has stated in testimony to the PSC that the switch to shore power at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal would save Brooklyn residents yearly health costs "approaching $9 Million".

If the concerned parties could work out their differences and finalize this shore power deal, the burden of these health impacts could finally be lifted from our communities.

The concern about those real health impacts is pushing some of our representatives in the Council of the City of New York to present a resolution that, as Resolution 463 states, "urges the New York State Public Service Commission to immediately set a competitive electrical rate at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in order to facilitate the use of shore-based electrical power by cruise ships that wish to cease idling in ports and reduce the amount of emissions released into the surrounding neighborhoods."

The entire resolution is at the bottom of this post. It cites many of the facts I have been articulating in this blog and makes a compelling case for the immediate creation of a "shore power tariff".

The Committee on Waterfronts will be holding their hearing on the resolution on February 17, 2011 at 1:00PM at Council chambers, 16th Floor, 250 Broadway, New York, NY. This hearing is open to the public.

Hopefully the resolution will spur some action and push forward a process that will lead to a long-term solution. But while we're waiting for the PSC to rule on this - and given their track record, it might take a while - something needs to be done to get the shore power plan up and running, a.s.a.p.

The bottom line is, at least in the short term, someone might need to pay - whether it's Carnival who seem to be doing pretty well right now, or perhaps the NYC Economic Development Corporation (who could subsidize Carnival or Con Ed in the short term), or, hey, Con Ed could just create a cheaper rate for the ships and know that they're getting a whole lot of new business, and maybe more to come with what should be the expansion of shore power throughout the Ports of New York.

What is clear is that it's unfair to ask our most vulnerable to pay this cost any longer. Kids with asthma, the elderly, minority communities and people with lung disease shouldn't have to bear this burden any longer.

Action is needed - right now.

Here's the resolution -



Res. No. 463


Resolution urging the New York State Public Service Commission to immediately set a competitive electrical rate at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in order to facilitate the use of shore-based electrical power by cruise ships that wish to cease idling in ports and reduce the amount of emissions released into the surrounding neighborhoods.

By Council Members Nelson, Chin, Fidler, Gentile, James, Koppell, Lander, Palma, Rose, Sanders Jr., Williams, Rodriguez, Seabrook, Levin, Gonzalez and Halloran

• Whereas, Bunker fuel, a heavy petroleum product that is left behind after the distilling process, is one of the dirtiest fuels and is used to power most cargo ships because it is much cheaper than other fuel sources; and
• Whereas, Bunker fuel releases gases such as carbon, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide when it is burned and therefore, 43% of particulate matter in ports are due to marine vessels; and
• Whereas, According to a study published in the journal of the American Chemical Society, pollution from cargo ships in 2002 was linked to the premature deaths of 60,000 people worldwide; and
• Whereas, When cruise ships dock, their engines idle at the terminal in order to keep the electrical systems on the ship running; and
• Whereas, Environmentalists believe that a ship docked for one day emits as much exhaust as 10,000 cars; and
• Whereas, To avoid idling, ships have begun to employ a process called shore power, or cold-ironing, in which a ship plugs into an electrical power supply at the port, allowing the ship to turn off its engine; and
• Whereas, Shore power permits a large extension cable from the pier to be plugged into the ship, giving it power to operate its machinery without running the engine; and
• Whereas, According to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, implementing cold-ironing at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal would reduce annual nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions by 100 tons each, particulate matter by 6 tons, and carbon dioxide emissions by almost 1,500 tons; and
• Whereas, The Port Authority also estimates that reducing emissions by switching to shore power would create $9 million per year in health benefits; and
• Whereas, Shore power is already in use at ports such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, Long Beach, and San Diego; and
• Whereas, In order to bring shore power to the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, the Port Authority has committed to invest $15 million in capital for infrastructure improvements and the Environmental Protection Agency awarded the Port Authority $2.85 million to support improvements as well; and
• Whereas, Carnival Cruise Lines has also committed to investing $1 million to $2 million per ship to enable the vessels to connect to electric power; and
• Whereas, A major obstacle, however, that is standing in the way of implementing shore power at the cruise terminal is the price of electric power, which can cost millions of dollars more than leaving the ship idle; and
• Whereas, Con Edison's electric rates for shore power are too costly and must be lowered in order to be competitive with the cheaper bunker fuel that is used while idling; and
• Whereas, New York City and the Port Authority have both lobbied the New York State Public Service Commission to institute a shore power tariff that is economically viable for cruise ships; and
• Whereas, An appropriate shore power tariff in New York City would discontinue the use of high polluting diesel engines, improve the air quality of Brooklyn and New York City in general, and provide the potential for the establishment of shore power throughout the ports of New York; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Council of the City of New York urges the New York State Public Service Commission to immediately set a competitive electrical rate at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in order to facilitate the use of shore-based electrical power by cruise ships that wish to cease idling in ports and reduce the amount of emissions released into the surrounding neighborhoods.

Despite Carnival paying only 1.1% Tax, the Quibbling Continues about Who Pays For the Cost of Shore Power at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal

There was a New York Times article this week, "The Paradox of Corporate Taxes", by David Leonhardt, that detailed how little many corporations pay in taxes in this country due to the exploitation of loopholes in the tax code - this being despite the US having an official corporate tax rate higher than many other countries.

The example that Mr. Leonhardt cites as an example of this practice of tax minimization - an "extreme case", as he puts it - is Carnival Corporation, the operators of Carnival Cruises, the company that operates the cruise ships that use the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook, Brooklyn.

The NY Times article states -

"Over the last five years, the company has paid total corporate taxes — federal, state, local and foreign — equal to only 1.1 percent of its cumulative $11.3 billion in profits (That's profits folks - not earnings - Ed). Thanks to an obscure loophole in the tax code, Carnival can legally avoid most taxes."

It's also noted that Carnival operates with the benefits of many tax payer funded services - Customs officers and services; infrastructure, including roads, bridges and terminals; US Coast Guard services, etc. - and that Carnival "wouldn't have much of a business" without these publicly funded services. Anyone who has ever wondered who was paying for the NY City Police who park their cars to stop traffic going through to Summit Street from Hamilton Ave at Van Brunt Street and control traffic at the Bowne Street intersection while the ships are in - well, if Carnival aren't paying their fair share of taxes, I guess we have our answer.

We are.

Now, many corporations are benefiting from these corporate tax loopholes, but the reason that the revelations about Carnival's tax avoidance seem so egregious, is that they come at at time that there is a squabble about who should be paying for the ongoing costs of supplying "shore power" to the visiting ships at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. This is in relation to the already funded plan to build infrastructure and implement the practice of "cold ironing" at the terminal, allowing the visiting ships to stop idling their dirty-diesel burning engines while in port, as they currently do.

In my previous post, I wrote of the rally that was held in January, convened by many local politicians and attended by representatives from the community, demanding that the drawn out process that was taking place to resolve the differences between the various parties involved - The City of New York, The NYC Economic Development Corporation, Con Edison, The New York State Public Service Commission, Carnival Cruise Lines and others - finally come to a close by getting an agreement to finally get this deal done.

The message from that rally was that this process was taking too long. Despite all parties being in agreement about the merits of the "shore power" plan, and various entities, including the Port Authority, the NYCEDC, Carnival Cruise Lines the EPA and others, committing real funds to build the infrastructure and support the plan, many were still quibbling about who was going to pay for the ongoing operating costs, or whether the Public Service Commission should set a new rate of electricity supply from Con Edison to make this plan more economically viable, or whether Carnival should just pay the additional cost of electricity vs. diesel - yadda, yadda, yadda.

The quibbling continues.

The City of New York will be holding a hearing on Monday, Feb. 17th, during which there will be a resolution presented, as the text in Res. No. 463 states, "urging the New York State Public Service Commission to immediately set a competitive electrical rate at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in order to facilitate the use of shore-based electrical power by cruise ships that wish to cease idling in ports and reduce the amount of emissions released into the surrounding neighborhoods."

Full Google Docs text of the resolution here. (It outlines many of the facts and figures I have been trying to disseminate in this blog).

The Public Service Commission moves very slowly and this may be a long process - this case has already been at the PSC for over a year - but, if this resolution has any influence, maybe there's hope that something will get resolved concerning the long term operation of the terminal.

But, we also need to make sure something gets done in the short term - like right now.

We've already waited 5 years .... it's 5 years since the "state of the art" terminal was built .... it's already hundreds of avoidable tons of carcinogenic SOx and smog causing NOx later ... it's already tens of tons of avoidable asthma inducing Particulate Matter later .... it's already $27 Million in avoidable health costs later .....

We need someone to step up to take these burdens off our communities. But, at least in the short term, who will pay?

Will it be the NYCEDC who built the terminal without this already proven "shore power" infrastructure that was being used up and down the West Coast a decade before? Will it be the Port Authority who own the terminal, but who, according to one of their spokesmen, weren't aware of the pollution mitigating practice of "cold ironing" till 2007 (despite the U.S. Navy using it for decades)? Will it be the City of New York that benefits economically from the visitors that the cruise ships bring ($145 Million last year), but, despite the proclaimed "green" credentials of the Mayor himself, seems slow to acknowledge and address the health burdens the operation of their ports - cruise, container, etc. - puts on the residents of the city? Will it be Carnival, a company that in the 5 years since this terminal was built has seen profits of $11.3 Billion, while paying little tax, but can't seem to "cough" with the added cost of using electricity while in port, instead of burning extra dirty diesel?

No one seems to be putting up their hand.

Meanwhile, the residents of Brooklyn are still breathing in these carcinogenic and otherwise harmful substances. The residents of Brooklyn, especially our most vulnerable, are paying with their health, and as the statement of the Port Authority to the Public Service Commission states, "we estimate that the annual health benefits emissions reductions arising from a switch from on board generation to shore power at the BCT (Brooklyn Cruise Terminal), adjusted for Kings County, approaches $9 Million".

That's a $9 Million Per Year health cost to Brooklyn residents - to our kids - to our elderly - to our minority communities - you know, in cancer, asthma, heart disease, premature mortality - right now.

I wonder how much of that is covered by the 1.1% tax rate that Carnival currently pays?


.

Rally For "Shore Power" at Red Hook Cruise Terminal Generates Much Needed Publicity

Yesterday, representatives from government and the community braved the cold to hold a rally and press conference to try to push forward the stalled plan to bring shore power to the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook. This is a plan that will allow the cruise ships to turn off their extra-dirty diesel engines while in port instead of idling, as they currently do, spreading dangerous substances through the air of the neighborhoods of Red Hook, Carroll Gardens, the Columbia Waterfront, Cobble Hill and beyond.

In attendance were Councilmember Brad Lander, state Sen. Daniel Squadron, Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, State Sen. Velmanette Montgomery and Councilmember Stephen Levin. Also in attendance were representatives of Rep. Jerrold Nadler (who's district includes the Red Hook waterfront and a few of its residents) and CM Lander conveyed the support of Councilmember Sarah Gonzalez, who represents Red Hook in the City Council, who was absent.

We should be thankful that those who are representing us in government are providing the political muscle to try to break the deadlock that is stopping this deal, more than two years in the making, from being finalized. It's been missing in the past, but, in recent years, Congresswoman Velazquez, CM Lander and Senator Squadron have really taken the lead on this. I'm happy to say the others are now truly "on board", and at the rally showed themselves to be outspoken advocates for our communities on this matter.

Rather than explain the details of what the "hold up" is with making this deal happen and finalizing this plan (I've discussed that at length in my previous posts), please take a look at the list of articles at the bottom of this post that this event generated in local news and blogs.

After spending many years asking questions (writing my first letter to the City in 2005 about whether "shore power" was going to be used at the $56 million Brooklyn Cruise Terminal being built at the end of my young family's residential street), trying to educate myself about, and raise awareness of the issue of ship pollution - not only with cruise ships, but with container and cargo ships too - and after starting this blog in early 2009 in response to the frustration I was feeling about the lack of action on this matter, the lack of political advocacy, the absence of coverage in the media, and in an effort to try to spread the information that I had gathered concerning the problems and solutions regarding the impacts of port pollution, I am so pleased to see this matter being given the coverage it deserves in the press.

It's something that should be being getting broad coverage and a matter that should be addressed seriously by the Ports of New York and New Jersey. In reality, the plan for "shore power" at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal should be the first step in implementing this pollution mitigating practice throughout our city's ports - cleaning the air and bringing the resultant health benefits to all of our city's residents.

Hopefully, this recent coverage will help to push this initial, important process forward - urgently. The bottom line is (and many people said this) - this is taking too long. All parties involved agree this should happen. The EPA has made statements that this plan will eliminate tons of harmful substances from our neighborhoods' air and the lungs of those who are most vulnerable to their impact - "children, the elderly, people with lung disease" and asthma. The Port Authority has stated that this plan will save Brooklyn residents a monetized amount "that approaches $9 Million" in yearly health costs - that's in cancer, heart and lung disease, premature mortality and asthma - every year.

I don't really care about the quibbling, who wants to pay, who doesn't. At the moment it's our residents who are paying, many who are the most vulnerable in our community. As others have also said, this is a matter of "environmental justice".

All I can say is let's get this done. For our kids. For our neighborhood. For our city.

It will be worth it.


NEW YORK POST - "B'klyn moves to clean up pollution from Cruise Ship Terminal at Pier 12", by Rich Calder

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS - "Cruise ships docked at Red Hook terminal are 'choking Brooklyn,' community leaders say", by Erin Durkin

GOTHAMIST - "Red Hook Sick of Cruise Ships' Idling Engines", by John Del Signore

NY 1 NEWS - "Advocates Make Push for "Shore Power" in Brooklyn"

CBS New York / 1010 WINS - "Residents: Idling Cruise Ships Choking Brooklyn", by Al Jones

BROOKLYN PAPERS - "Pols: City needs to ‘cruise’ on green solution to pier pollution", by Gary Buiso

CARROLL GARDENS PATCH - "A Big Push For Shore Power In South Brooklyn", by Georgia Kral

BROOKLYN DAILY EAGLE - "Officials Call for Cleaner Power at Cruise Terminal"

NEW YORK OBSERVER - "Meanwhile, Red Hook Choking on its Tourists", by Matt Chaban

SOUTH BROOKLYN POST - "Rally Demands End to Cruise Pollution", by Lisa M. Collins

PARDON ME FOR ASKING - "Local Politicians Start The New Year By Calling For Agreement On Shore Power For Brooklyn Cruise Terminal", by Katia Kelly