Trust Gap Persists Between Activists and Air Resources Board Over ShoreKat System

A Nov 13 online meeting between local activists and staff from the California Air Resources Board concerning the ShoreKat emissions-capture system at Pasha’s Green Omni Terminal made little, if any headway in resolving past differences, but did hold out a ray of hope going forward, at least potentially.

The ShoreKat system — the most expensive item in the $14.5 million grant, initially funded at $3.75 million — never even tested a greenhouse reduction technology, one of its key selling points, and lacked the mobility to meet operational needs, but still was granted an executive order [EO] misleadingly signaling its commercial viability, community critics argue. (The system was built by Clean Air Engineering Maritime, a company owned by former Harbor Commission President Nick Tonsich, who is forbidden from getting money directly from the port by city ethics regulations.)
But CARB says ShoreKat passed all required tests. However, the EO was withdrawn when Pasha dismantled the system… because it did not work.

“We’re going to have to agree to disagree,” Heather Arias, chief of CARB’s Transportation and Toxics Division (TTD), said repeatedly, eventually echoed by Mike DiBernardo, representing the Port of LA on the call. But “If you guys have recommendations for changing things moving forward, we’d be happy to discuss that,” she said near the conclusion.

In her opening statement, Janet Gunter — who’s played a leading role in raising concerns, particularly to CARB — expressed both the high regard most in the community feel for CARB, and the profound frustration in this exceptional case.

“CARB has always been perceived as an agency that the people could rely on to take the moral high ground, protecting people against industry polluters and corrupt agencies,” Gunter said, but. “The issuance of the Shorekat Executive Order by CARB seriously undermines that perspective,” she warned, going on to explain:

Many of the people on this call have continued to contact CARB during the 7 ½ years that the Green Omni Terminal debacle was taking place with concerns. We have warned CARB over these many years of the potential of corruption along with a long list of lies encountered with regard to the Pasha terminal. Unfortunately, CARB has disregarded these concerns, and what we believe are serious infractions of the grant process.

Specifically, Gunter charged, CARB granted the EO for a system that:

Proved non-operation for a working terminal, failed every mobility test outlined in the grant application, was completely unsafe and unstable, was so poorly designed it could not reach the top of the stacks of vessels calling at Pasha, was such a hazard on the terminal that it was disassembled at the first opportunity by Pasha, was never operated with approved biofuels during the time it was being tested for efficiencies of criteria pollutants, was itself… a source of pollution that added GHGs (greenhouse gases) to the terminal, was incapable of GHG reduction and never even tested any GHG reduction technology as promised, in fact, it never achieved even the capture levels of the METS-1 system [which it was based on].

But CARB’s response was that the system had met the regulatory requirements in place at the time (new standards were approved in 2020).

Regarding the grant, “It was a demonstration project. We did learn a lot from it,” Arias said. “After the grant, there was an application for the executive order so that it could then be used in a business purpose. There were many back-and-forths with my team and the applicant on data and testing data and a test plan. All that information was received. Our engineers went through it very thoroughly. We’ve documented many times over all the information that we went back and forth on which led to CARB issuing an executive order for the use of this technology at the end of 2022,” she said. “Subsequent to that, we learned that the system had been dismantled and revoked the executive order seven months later.”

“Did you ever ask Pasha why they dismantled the system?” homeowner activist Kathleen Woodfield asked later. But she never got a response. She also asked, “Did anyone know that an EO for ShoreKat would trigger a $600,000 payment to CAEM and Nick Tonsich, even though it was not performing?” —a question based on common knowledge in the community, which also never got a response.

If this sounds like reports from two different worlds, that’s precisely the point. Activists are relying on what they’ve seen first-hand and what they’ve heard from those involved — up to a point when Pasha’s top management clamped down on anyone speaking publicly. For example, before that clampdown, a source at Pasha told Random Lengths that CARB’s reporting procedure was flawed in two ways. First, they said that the equipment manufacturer, Trimer, had advised CARB not to use the data from the test, because the equipment was too new, in its burn-in phase. Second, the test time requirements were inadequate.

“The total amount of hours that thing has to prove itself is 200 hours,” compared to a full year of data for the other project components, the source said, explaining that was slightly less than three full cycles of a ship’s typical 72 hours in port, with no way of accounting for differences between them. “You’re talking three vessels, and you’re saying, ‘Okay, this is it. This is proven.’ To me, that’s just a joke. It’s too little,” the source concluded.

Another key issue was the system’s mobility—or rather lack thereof, a deficiency Random Lengths has also previously noted.

In an April 30, 2019 letter to CARB’s executive officer, Jesse Marquez, head of the Coalition For A Safe Environment, wrote, “The ShoreKat system in its present form as tested at Pasha in April looks nothing like the original drawing; it is much bigger and heavier and slower than originally designed and, in fact, it is too heavy to be practically mobile to support terminal operations,” adding that it “cannot travel at the stated 10mph because it’s too unstable, and has a modified Grove crane that poses a danger to terminal workers. All cranes must meet OSHA standards and any modification, alteration, unauthorized component, part change, or misapplication voids manufacturer warranties.”

The issue was touched on by two staffers in CARB’s Marine Strategies Section.

“This executive order was Issued after clean-air engineering demonstrated their capture efficiency using this system on bulk vessels,” said Angela Csondes, the section supervisor. “It wasn’t in the executive orders parameters to meet this greenhouse gas component or to make sure that the system has that mobility, that landside mobility. Those were not part of the CARB Executive Order issuance,” she explained. “They tested it for NOx, PM, and capture efficiency, the things that we certify. It does that,” said Jonathan Foster. “It doesn’t move around as mobile as you’d want it to…” At which point Gunter interjected, “It doesn’t move around at all.” And a few seconds later Jesse Marquez, head of the Coalition For A Safe Environment, made a related point, “It couldn’t reach the stack of the ship,” he said. “How does that system work?”

“However CARB defines ‘capture efficiency,’ in the real world, a system that cannot be moved into position, and that does NOT reach the stack of the ship simply cannot have capture efficiency,” Gunter told Random Lengths, after the meeting. “CARB needs to describe just how any emissions reduction could possibly be achieved under those restrictions! The notion that it could be effective is a total fallacy! However, anyone seeing the Shorekat’s CARB EO would naturally assume that such problems don’t exist. That’s the way in which CARB’s EO is profoundly misleading,” Gunter said. “It is quite literally ‘false advertising!’”

And it was advertising that CAEM gobbled up. After the EO was granted, CAEM promoted it, naturally. But it made no mention when the EO was withdrawn. CAEM continues to pretend the EO is in effect, stating on its website — as of Nov 20—that “Clean Air Engineering Maritime is currently the only company to hold multiple Executive Orders from the California Resource Board (CARB). The Executive orders from CARB cover both a barge-based and shore-based system…. The ‘ShoreKat’ is the only CARB-approved shore-based system receiving an Executive Order from CARB in December of 2022.”
That blatant public misrepresentation is characteristic of the whole process, as activists in the meeting see it. But it’s entirely out of the scope of CARB staff’s procedures.

“You may have followed all the rules, and these guidelines, but the rules and guidelines are not adequate,” Andrea Hricko, professor emerita of public health at USC said. “I think ARB should step back and take a look at the situation, and that probably means the port does too, and figure out how this kind of debacle cannot happen again.”

Past promises that weren’t met came most prominently from Chris Cannon, POLA’s former head of environmental affairs. “What about all the misstatements that Chris Cannon made about this and all guarantees that he made to the board about what this system would do or not do? And why is Chris Cannon not there anymore?” Gunter asked. “Does it have anything to do with…”

DiBernardo cut her off “So, Janet, I can’t talk about personnel matters, OK.” he said. “So let’s not drag that into this. And I can’t answer for what Chris said before.”

But silence surrounding “personnel matters” routinely obscures serious concerns about ethics and transparency, while refusal to answer for staff’s past statements undermines the credibility of current staff statements — including those of DiBernardo himself. This appears to reflect a profound misunderstanding about how public trust is built or lost.

Public inclusion is another facet involved.

“What the port of LA keeps on failing to consider is that if we did have a public meeting, or hearing on this subject, we would have recommended several other details and requirements so that there would be no ‘oops!’ or a problem later,” Marquez said. “All of us on this call have been working with the port for over 20 years now, we have extensive knowledge of technology, and we have the resources to evaluate test plans as well. We have total capability to determine you know are the reductions being proposed by this technology better or worse than another, because we know all the others as well,” he said. But by not including the public in this process both at the port level as well as CARB, we left out these other details.”

Both CARB and the port expressed some willingness to increase participation, but just how remains unclear.

Tom Williams, a community member with decades of inside experience also had one suggestion. “Have somebody from the community help on the next grant review,” Williams said. “And perhaps if the port can help us, as to grant proposals, can they go through any sort of community interaction before they’re submitted to CARB?”

DiBernardo responded with practicality concerns. “There’s a short time when people get the grant, just give us to turn things around,” he said. “you’re looking at sometimes 60 to 90 days that these applications are to be turned in. So the timeline is quick. And I’m not sure the timing of going out getting input and then what happens with that input differs, how do you change it? You miss the deadline.”

But while that might seem to end the matter, it could point to a new beginning, in at least two ways. First: A standing structure for community input — akin to CARB’s own Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, or POLA’s lapsed Port Community Advisory Committee—could provide for quick and efficient community interaction. Second, CARB could extend its deadlines specifically to allow for such input. Given that both CARB and the port expressed openness to more community involvement, such ideas ought to at least be considered in future discussions.

Whether they will remains to be seen.

“It seems clear that all parties could benefit from a more cohesive relationship that included those who are most significantly impacted (such as the community) as part of the grant decision-making process,” Gunter told Random Lengths afterward. “The affected community participation would promise a greater vigilance for receiving the most bang for the buck. The community’s health concerns would not be tempered by bias or political favoritism. This seems like a very pragmatic idea going forward. Let’s see if anyone is listening.”

And CARB’s official response, from communications director Lys Mendez, stressed its openness. “CARB has an extensive public process that takes place for its rulemaking and program implementation which includes virtual and in-person meetings, opportunities for community input, and engagement with community members and organizations,” Mendez said. “The Nov. 13 meeting, which was organized specifically for San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United, is an example of how CARB staff go beyond the official public process to hear directly from community residents about their ideas and concerns, and we will continue to work with residents and trusted community partners to maintain that engagement.”

So the door is open. The question is, how far?