A blog on the PMSA website titled "Testing, The Right Thing to Do" by TL Garrett misses the point in attacking natural gas trucks serving port drayage. Actually, the blog misses several points. Let's review the case for natural gas as a transportation fuel in the US.

National Security

In 2009, the U.S. imported 4.35 billion barrels of oil. About one-third of that oil came from OPEC countries. OPEC's share of U.S. oil imports continues to climb year after year. Who exactly is OPEC? OPEC members include Iran, Libya, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and a few other international role models. Spot any true friends of the U.S. in this notorious group? I don't think so. Any number of foreign interests or events can easily disrupt our supply of oil. Isn't this why our U.S. military must continually be deployed to protect our oil imports? We know that the price of a gallon of diesel does not reflect the true costs of keeping this product flowing to our pumps. The world we live in is too dangerous to bet our future on importing oil from unfriendly countries. On the flip side, 98% of the natural gas in America comes from wells in North America, i.e. the United States and Canada. Given the vital need to keep cargo moving, one would think that PMSA would take the bet on the Canadians over OPEC.

Jobs and Economic Recovery

We spent $265 billion importing oil in 2009. That is money being sucked straight out of our bank accounts and the U.S. economy and sent to foreign interests. We are funding both sides of a future war. We cannot continue to export our wealth if we are to remain the world's economic leader. Imagine if we replaced our OPEC imports with natural gas. This would immediately pump $90 billion into the U.S. economy and do it the old fashioned way - not through an economic stimulus package. Imagine the number of direct and indirect jobs that would be created by spending $90 billion annually on domestic energy right here at home. Imagine the impact upon our fragile economic recovery. American energy and jobs or OPEC imports? The correct answer is obvious. Given the importance of the U.S. consumer to the business interests of PMSA members, one would think that the organization would put a high priority on U.S. economic recovery and stability.

Greenhouse Gas Reductions

Natural gas fueled vehicles reduce greenhouse gas emissions, when compared to gasoline and diesel, by up to 30% with traditional natural gas and by up to 90% with renewable biogas from landfills, farms, and other sources. According to the California Air Resources Board, natural gas already complies with the 2020 requirement of California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard. No other commercially available fuel or technology can achieve such benefits today. Natural gas is the one strategy that is available right now today to help trucking significantly reduce the supply chain's carbon footprint.

Cleaner Air

Natural gas engines have always led the way to cleaner air, while diesel engines have always played catch-up in response to EPA mandates. In fact, the natural gas engine cited by Mr. Garrett complied with EPA's 2010 emissions standard over 2-1/2 years ago. Diesel engines are now just meeting 2010 compliance. And be very careful with 2010 compliance. Some diesel engines don't actually meet the 2010 standard. Instead, these engines are using emission credits to comply with 2010 "certification" requirements. What does this mean? The "2010 compliant" diesel engine may not really be all that clean. They are not actually emitting at these low levels, but are instead using "credits" to trade actual tailpipe emissions. Sadly, the California Air Resources Board is relaxing their standard for the Carl Moyer vehicle replacement program because not enough diesel engines comply with the 2010 EPA standard without credits. The long story short: diesel engines are putting more emissions into local communities than advertised by "2010 emissions."

Oddly, Mr. Garrett focused on the EPA 2010 emissions standard even though port drayage trucks do not need to meet this standard. In fact, the most stringent standard at any U.S. port is the EPA 2007 standard adopted by the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. All of the thousands of new "clean" diesel trucks deployed at LA and Long Beach meet the 2007 standard, not the 2010 standard. For reference, a truck with an engine that meets the EPA 2007 emission standards is six times dirtier than one meeting the EPA 2010 emission standards. On the other hand, all of the natural gas trucks operating in the ports are better than the EPA 2007 standard and most meet the EPA 2010 standard - without the smoke-and-mirrors of emission credits. In the future, used diesel trucks meeting the EPA 2007 standard will be deployed at these ports instead of trucks meeting the EPA 2010 standard; robbing communities of the additional emission reductions they could be provided with natural gas engines. The comparison Mr. Garrett should really be making is the EPA 2010-compliant natural gas engine against EPA 2007 diesel engines. Of course this is a problem for his viewpoint because the 2010 natural gas engine reduces NOx by 83% compared to the 2007 diesel engines.

People

Finally, let's not forget the truck driver that pays for his or her fuel. These drivers are at the bottom of the supply chain yet have a vital role in delivering the goods in our economy. Natural gas is cheaper than diesel. In 2009, port drivers with natural gas trucks saved roughly $2 million compared to diesel. A natural gas truck driver can pocket an extra $5,000 to $6,000 or more per year. For a driver making $30,000 per year, natural gas fuel savings amounts to a 20% raise and contributes to a more reasonable and sustainable standard a living that is good for our local economies.

The Full Analysis

Natural gas is cheaper, cleaner, lower carbon, American, and abundant. This isn't a slick Madison Avenue marketing slogan like "Clean Diesel". These are simply the facts.