L A T C T R A N S P O R T E R

pg. 2

Forget about global warming, cooling, climate change or whatever… Republicans or Democrats, scan-dalous emails, biased bureaucrats, meteorological gossip or gospel, from on-high hypocrites or laureates,climate cultists, deniers, earth-huggers or planet-haters, none of it really matters. Instead, please considerjust a few of the well known but barely discussed or appreciated facts of the coming impact on the trans-portation industry and business (consumer) costs as a consequence of the ongoing and additional forth-comingmandates from the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Fines have begun andmanymore areto come.

Cap and Trade is a done deal here in California, with CARB being the 11-member unelected group of folksappointed by the Governor and empowered by the legislature under the state’s climate change law (As-sembly Bill 32: GlobalWarming Solutions Act) signed in 2006, to change our lives. NewCA regulations arefar reaching across various industries and for transportation, particularlymotor carriers and their customers,nothing short of titanic. Thus, CARB has wisely chosen to present them in terms of not only reducing pol-lution and improving health in fulfillment of their legislative mandate, but also as an economic benefit tocompliant carriers, consumers and all Californians.

CARB Chairperson Mary D. Nichols says: "This important measure is ultimately going to improve our airquality, save hard-earned dollars and promote energy independence by helping to decrease our con-sumption of fuel. It makes good environmental and economic sense for business owners and for thoseof us who live and breathe in California."

CARB says this regulation “over the course of the 11 years between2010 and 2020... is estimated to saveabout $8.6 billion, as well as 750 million gallons of diesel fuel in California, and 5 billion gallons ofdiesel fuel across the nation.”

So if those words are true then it should be a no-brainer, slam dunk, in everyone’s benefit – right?! But re-ality is that those statements are based on fraudulent science, dishonesty and bias, fiction not facts, and bla-tantly faulty logic.

Specifically, the above declarations and the entirety of the CARB calculations and regulations (the GoodsMovement Emission Reduction Plan) were derived from epidemiological conclusions developed by Mr.Hien Tran who was their Manager of the Health and Ecosystems Assessment Section in the Research Di-vision. As such Tran “…was the staff lead for Research Division's effort in quantifying the health effects as-sociatedwith exposure to air pollutants” (diesel exhaust). “These estimates have been used to highlight thebenefits of a number of proposed air toxic controlmeasures brought before the Board” according to CARB.Hien Tran is also aprofessional liarwhohas since been found to lack either the relevant background or ac-ademic credentials which he claimed.

These facts were discovered and then covered up, even from the rest of the CARBmembers prior to rele-vant discussion and important votes, by its’ own Chairperson Mary Nichols who denied, then later admit-ted and denigrated, and finally rejected then ignored questions and criticisms regarding Tran’s behaviorand conclusions as well as her leadership of the policy process.

Simply put, CARB is “resisting documentable truthful scientific evidencewhich shows that they are not cor-rect in their actions” (per James E. Enstrom, Ph.D., M.P.H. of UCLA) aswell as transportation industry ques-tioning and challenges delivered at numerous “public comment” sessions around the state. According toEnstrom and others, the health effects conclusions are based on old and disproven ‘data’, ignore inputand alternative conclusions presented to CARB (and EPA) from numerous other actual scientists includ-ing more recent and comprehensive studies with contrary results.

Further faulty logic includes the statistical manipulations to ‘help’ the data point to desired economicbenefit conclusions. Specifically, the average speed for heavy trucks used in the calculationswas 65mph,despite themaximumCAheavy truck legal speed limit of 55mph, and even on Interstate 5 crossing the en-tire state the average speed limit is just 48.3mph (http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/time.htm). Further, thetrailer to tractor ratio utilized for fuel and cost savings from aerodynamic add-on equipment was 1:1 – notexactly representative of most motor carriers who actually own trailers.

continued on page 9

Featured

Article

CARBtastrophe?

David GreenLATC PresidentVia Verde Ventures

V O L U M E 1 1 I S S U E 0 3

pg. 9

FeaturedArticle

The reason for thesedistortions of reality and rationality is simple and readily admitted by the lower levelCalTrans and CARB bureaucrats involved in themany public comment and information sessions. Just askthem and they will tell you, again and again, that ‘their’ data produced the most favorable results, both interms of purported economic benefits and also with respect to making the biggest impact on health im-provements, emissions reductions and saving the planet from global warming. The further you get awayfrom ‘their’ statistics, and closer to reality, theworse thewhole scheme seems towork out for Californians.It’s because they care so much about us that they lie to us.

While CARB is quick to point out that truckers operating strictly local benefit from a short-haul tractor rulesexemption (“within a 100 mile radius from a home base”), the reality is that slip seating (maximizing capi-tal investment by utilizing equipment across shifts) is simply not feasible for most carriers because the ex-emption only applies to tractors “that drive less than 50,000miles per year”. That’s just 100miles per shiftif only operating MON-FRI for only 50 weeks per year and only two shifts per day, or at 65mph average(CARB’s statistics) then they are talking about driving just 1.54 hours per shift. Not realistic for the vastma-jority of trucking businesses.

In addition, andwith surprisingly little discussion or fanfare, CARB is in the process of expanding liabilitiesbeyond merely the motor carriers to all transportation stakeholders, for the equipment and opera-tions of motor carrier equipment. CARB says: “Besides the owners of these vehicles, drivers, motorcarriers, California-based brokers and California-based shippers that operate or use them also sharein the responsibility for compliance with the regulation. One or all of these parties may be held ac-countable for operating or using non-compliant vehicles on California highways.” The implications ofthis expansion of obligations (read: newoperating costs and fines) to shippers and brokers unlucky enoughto be based in California are unprecedented and unknown but with devastating potential.

So ask yourself, and your policymakers, if trailer side skirts and rear fairings and low-rolling resistance tiresand other nowCA-mandated transportation technologieswere truly economically beneficial to the carriers,then wouldn’t more (perhaps even a majority) of the hundreds of thousands of self-interested carriers outthere in Texas, New Jersey, Idaho and elsewhere ALREADY be utilizing theseworthwhile and available op-tions? Wouldn’t at least the very largest and best capitalized carrierswith their experienced teams ofmain-tenance and efficiency professionalswho currently consult directlywith original equipmentmanufacturersat the highest level to innovate and design for maximum efficiency ALREADY have considered, evaluatedand implemented these terrific business tools formutual economic gain? Is it possible that CARB alone hasthe insight and wisdom to knowwhat is best for industry?

For the record, and before you answer, two prior notable CARB policies and achievements include: man-dated diesel fuel reformulation without adequate testing, leading to the damage of thousands of dieselengines in the state and taxpayer cost of over $10M to replacemany of the damaged engines; and, broughtus the gasoline additive MTBE which initially cost Californians an additional $.20-.30/gallon (over $30B)and later another $20B for cleanup of contaminated groundwater after being found to be poisonous to theenvironment and was banned.

The bottom line is that you can take the word of experienced, professional stakeholders when it comes tothe impact of CARB rules on transportation industry economics and downstream consumers, or accept asfact the pronouncements fromabove by unelected, non-expert, ideological and dishonest bureaucratswhoboldly regulate based on a ‘because-we-can’ philosophy. If the two groups agree and are correct then weallwin, but if the professionals (andmany unconvinced scientists) are correct and the bureaucrats (with theirpolitical backers) are not, then we – particularly California consumers, businesses and jobs – lose big.

Let me know your thoughts on this topic and any feedback on my interpretations, and please keep thequestions and ideas coming.

David GreenVia Verde Ventures

CARBtastrophe? continued from page 2