Providing the final step in approval, the Port of Los Angeles harbor commission on Thursday, Nov. 21, approved a cooperative agreement with the South Coast Air Quality Management District that commits the port — and the neighboring Port of Long Beach whose commissioners approved the agreement earlier this month — to developing and implementing zero-emissions infrastructure.
Both commissions gave unanimous approval to the agreement that offered a substitute to the earlier so-called Indirect Source Rule being considered by the agency that opponents believed would have put caps on port cargo.
Port of L.A. Executive Director Gene Seroka called it a “landmark agreement” that will provide the framework going forward as both ports aim for a zero-emissions future.
“We’re turning the page from relying on aspirational goals” to “mandatory, verifiable action” with Thursday’s approval, he said.
David Libatique, deputy executive director of Stakeholder Engagement for the Port of Los Angeles, who represented the port in the long-running and intensive discussions, hailed the agreement for providing a binding five-year plan that includes specific deadlines and goals along with penalties.
The agreement, he said, “provides the certainty and predictability needed to make the necessary investment decisions.” It will cover all five major sources of port pollution: cargo handling equipment, drayage trucks, locomotives, harbor craft, and ocean going vessels.
“A plan will be made for each (category),” he said.
Heather Tomley, managing director of Planning and Environmental Affairs for the Port of Long Beach, also spoke at Thursday’s L.A. meeting to express support.
“This was a roll-up-your-sleeves, all-in effort to bring this forward,” she said, “and everyone is committed to the outcome.”
The agreement, Tomley said, “is something we can all celebrate as a significant and important step on our path to zero emissions. It also marks the start of (what will be) a lot of hard work, but I believe it will provide the focus, commitment and collaboration that will be needed to build out the (zero emission) infrastructure.”
The air quality district’s Governing Board approved the agreement on Friday, Nov. 7. It commits the two ports to developing and implementing plans for zero-emissions infrastructure for equipment types in three phases, starting with a draft plan in May 2027. That would be followed by approved plans in place for all categories by the end of 2029.
The proposal isn’t without its critics, however, with some calling it a closed-door cooperative agreement that results in the South Coast AQMD surrendering regulatory authority to the ports.
Dori Chandler, a policy advocate for the Coalition for Clean Air, speaking at Thursday’s meeting, said discussions going forward need to include “robust community involvement and participation,” adding, “public trust has been broken throughout this process and the public process needs to be transparent and participatory, the port needs to go above and beyond in these efforts.”
In other action, L.A. Port commissioners on Thursday also approved a revised and final supplemental Environmental Impact Report of the China Shipping Terminal at Berths 97-109 — but only following some expressed concerns and an hourlong break by the commission to further discuss the matter in closed session. That included an agreement to continue discussions over the next few months with critics who still have concerns about the EIR and its enforcement.
The China Shipping issue, said Seroka, “dates back more than a quarter century.”
The terminal, he said, moves more than 10% of the cargo processed at the port.
Speakers at Thursday’s commission meeting included those in the community who were among those bringing an original lawsuit in the issue nearly 30 years ago and have continued to track port pollution.
“This EIR is a half-hearted gesture,” said Janet Gunter of San Pedro. “It’s not going hard or fast enough to make any kind of a difference. If you are sincere, get under this and figure it out.”
A permit for the 142-acre terminal was issued in 2001 and challenged in 2004, Seroka said in explaining the history before the vote was taken. A new Environmental Impact Report was certified, he added, in 2008.
“When I stepped in (as executive director) in 2014, I learned that the port was not in compliance” with the entirety of the measure. He directed staff to conduct a supplemental EIR that was approved in 2019 with additional mitigation and lease measures.
Following that further mitigation — and some court concerns that still followed — a final revised certification issued on Nov. 10 was up for a vote on Thursday.
After port officials agreed in closed session to continue discussions specifically about requirements for ships plugging in at port and other concerns raised by the public, commissioners unanimously passed the motion — but with the stipulation that discussion with critics needed to continue. Port attorneys determined there would still be time to further discuss some of those specific issues with public representatives before a March court deadline.
Dr. John Miller, an emergency room physician involved in the original court challenge, stressed that the mitigation needs to be enforced.
“Please don’t blow it by failing to amend the lease with China Shipping to make all mitigation measures enforceable,” he said.
“The port should revise and recirculate the EIR to adequately address the issues,” Miller said. “I became involved after learning about the health effects suffered by port workers and residents,” adding: “I think some progress is being made, but the community expects the port to keep the promises that have been made.”