Skip to content

How to Use This Data

Turning Health Impact Data Into Action

Port Health Watch assessments are designed to be deployed — not just read. Each assessment quantifies port-attributable health damages in the specific formats that regulators, grantmakers, legislators, and journalists need. Here's how to use them.

EPA Environmental Justice Grant Applications

EPA's Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving (EJCPS) and Government-to-Government (EJG2G) grants require applicants to demonstrate disproportionate environmental burden with quantified health impact data.

What to cite from our assessments:

  • Monetized health damages (annual $ figure) — demonstrates the scale of the problem in terms grantmakers understand
  • Environmental Justice Analysis section — maps directly to EPA EJScreen indicators and CDC Social Vulnerability Index data required in applications
  • Population exposure data — below-median-income population counts within the port impact zone
  • Health outcome estimates — premature deaths, hospitalizations, and ED visits attributable to port emissions

Where to cite it: In the "Statement of the Problem" and "Environmental and/or Public Health Issues" sections of the grant narrative. Reference the specific port assessment page URL and our Methodology for peer-reviewed sourcing.

Port Commission Testimony

Port commissioners respond to two things: economic data and community pressure. Our assessments give you both.

Key data points for testimony:

  • Annual health cost — the headline number. "Port emissions cost this community $X million per year in premature deaths and hospitalizations."
  • Per-community breakdown — the "Who Is Affected" table shows which neighborhoods bear the burden and what they look like demographically
  • Technology availability — every assessment documents that CARB-certified emissions capture technology exists today and is commercially deployed
  • California comparison — CARB has required at-berth controls since 2014. Your port has zero. This comparison is powerful in testimony.

How to present: Lead with the monetized health cost. Follow with the environmental justice data. Close with the technology solution and California precedent. Our assessments are structured in this exact sequence.

Title VI Complaints

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits recipients of federal funding from discriminating on the basis of race. If your port authority receives federal funding and its operations disproportionately burden communities of color, a Title VI complaint may be appropriate.

What our data supports:

  • Disproportionate impact documentation — our Environmental Justice Analysis maps emissions burden against race/ethnicity data at the census tract level
  • EJScreen percentile rankings — quantified demonstration that affected communities face higher-than-average environmental burden
  • CDC Social Vulnerability Index — shows that affected populations have compounding socioeconomic vulnerabilities
  • Comparison to regulated ports — demonstrates that California communities receive protection that your community does not

How to use it: Title VI complaints to EPA's Office of External Civil Rights Compliance require evidence of disparate impact. Our assessments provide the quantified health burden data; you provide the documentation of federal funding and the causal connection to port authority decisions.

Media Outreach

Journalists need three things: a number, a story, and a source they can verify.

Most newsworthy statistics from each assessment:

  • Premature deaths per year — the most powerful single number. "Port emissions kill X people per year in this community."
  • Monetized health cost — translates deaths into dollars, which makes it a policy story, not just a health story
  • The California gap — "California requires this technology. [Your state] does not." This is the regulatory story.
  • Community demographics — the environmental justice angle. Who is dying, and what do they look like?

For reporters: All data is sourced from publicly available primary sources (ICCT, EPA, Census Bureau, CDC). See our Methodology for complete sourcing. We are available for background briefings and data verification at research@porthealthwatch.org.

State Legislative Advocacy

State legislators considering at-berth emissions regulation need a cost-benefit case specific to their jurisdiction.

What our assessments provide:

  • State-specific regulatory gap analysis — documents what your state lacks compared to California's CARB regulation
  • Health cost of inaction — annual monetized health damages that continue every year without regulation
  • Technology readiness — documents that CARB-certified systems are commercially available today
  • Federal precedent — EPA authorized states to adopt California's at-berth standard in October 2023; our Regulatory Gap analysis maps the legal pathway

Model language: "According to Port Health Watch analysis using ICCT and EPA data, at-berth vessel emissions at [Port Name] cause an estimated [X] premature deaths and $[Y] million in public health damages annually. Technology to eliminate these emissions is commercially deployed in California. [State] has the legal authority to adopt equivalent standards."

Academic & Research Citation

Port Health Watch assessments are designed to meet academic citation standards.

Citation format:

Port Health Watch. "[Assessment Title]." Port Health Watch, [Year]. https://porthealthwatch.org/ports/[port-page]/. Accessed [Date].

Methodology transparency: All concentration-response functions, data sources, and assumptions are documented in our Methodology page. We use Krewski et al. (2009) as the primary CRF, EPA's Value of Statistical Life ($11.8M, 2024-adjusted), and ICCT goPEIT screening-level emissions data.

Corrections policy: If you identify an error in our analysis, contact research@porthealthwatch.org. We publish corrections transparently.