Abstract
California has worked to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions since the 1960s. The state’s environmental regulations have driven innovation and technological developments that reduced air pollution significantly. Despite California meeting the AB 32 targets four years early and reducing total emissions in 2018 by 13% since 2004, the state is experiencing increased GHG emissions from the transportation sector, which remains the largest source of GHG emissions in the state. Within the transportation sector, California’s freight system, which includes seaports, roadways, railways, and airports, contributes significantly to the emission of GHGs. Even though California’s massive freight system is a big contributor to the state’s economy, these movements of goods across the state are also responsible for up to 50% of the most harmful air pollutant emissions and 6% of GHG emissions. Drayage trucks are on-road, diesel-fueled, heavy-duty vehicles that pick-up or drop-off cargo at California’s ports and intermodal rail yards to transport goods via ground. There is a link to exposure to emissions from these trucks and health problems including asthma, reduced lung function, heart and lung disease, cancer, and premature death. Additionally, certain populations may be especially vulnerable to air pollution, including low-income communities, the elderly, those with a poor health, the disabled, and indigenous populations. The expectation is that trucks in freight transport will continue to increase through 2040. Meeting California’s environmental targets and assuring public health for all communities would require the drayage industry to transition to zero-emission and near-zero-emission technologies. The purpose of this thesis is to examine policy interventions at the state level that have the potential to help California reach its near-zero-emission and zero-emission vehicles in the drayage industry, as well as to analyze the tradeoffs regarding relevant criteria for choosing one intervention over another. I do this by using a Criteria Alternative Matrix (CAM) analysis as a way of implementing a portion of Bardach’s (2012), as well as interviews to policy and industry experts. After looking at the CAM and interview results and the different trade-offs between them, I recommend a hybrid of the three alternatives I analyze. I also conclude that when implementing this hybrid solution, it is important to consider the costs on the private sector and the state while protecting air quality and disadvantaged communities. In addition, I highlight the importance of good administrative processes that allow trucking companies to be informed about their options when it comes to the programs and resources they have available, such as subsidies and demonstration projects.