Clean Truck Program's Unfair Game

When the Clean Truck Program was put forward in California in April last year, everyone was excited. Nearby residents were celebrating for the long-expected cleaner air, media was raving about how this "bold plan is going to reduce the local air pollution by 80% in five year," 300 truckers of Los Angeles and Long Beach gathered in the street in June expressing their support of the stricter pollution standards. 

The reason for such jubilation is obvious. A wife a Long Beach trucker told LA Times:

"It's sad to see my husband is mistreated; I cry with him," she said. "He can't breathe at night. Sometimes he shares the respirator we bought for the children." 

But atmosphere changed shortly. 

The costly Program, $2 billion in replacing 16,000 aging fleet, though partly funded by the State, is going to add extra burden on trucking companies, especially the small ones.

The extra cost of trucking companies, besides the approved extra charge of $35 levy per loaded 20-foot equivalent unit from the loaders, is also likely to hit individual truckers eventually. 

At the same time, port of LA is changing the contractor trucker system, which currently takes up 90% of truckers in the port, to employee system, for more efficient management. That means, small trucking companies now need to pay employee's medical insurances and might be soon out of business. 

A lawsuit was filed on July 28 by American Trucking Association (ATA) against the ports and opposed the program all together. A federal judge doesn't suspend the project.

But it doesn't look like a fair game. The assistant director of communication of Port of Long Beach, Art Wong, seems to share the similar opinion. 

He said in a phone interview: "It seems to be unfair to demand small truck owners to switch to a new employment system and also be burdened with financing new trucks. They are in a disadvantageous position."

Port of Long Beach recently steered to a more lenient "concession" method, that allows the trucking companies to choose between self-financing or receive financing from the port. 

Continuous lawsuit shadows the project. Federal Maritime Commission is in the process of requiring the ports to supply more information on several key points, which might delay the October 1 start.