Port of LA’s longstanding China Shipping legal morass seeps into 2024

An appellate court decision called for more pollution mitigation measures to be implemented by the Port of Los Angeles in the case involving the 142-acre China Shipping Terminal, bouncing the issue back again to a lower court for further consideration and action.

It was the latest in what has been a long-running dispute that has pitted environmentalists against China Shipping, which is on the northwest side of the port near the Vincent Thomas Bridge.

The battle, initially launched by residents with the support of environmental groups, has been ongoing for more than two decades.

The plaintiffs in the case said the latest decision calls on the lower court to direct the port to implement a number of measures that have already has been issued in the long-running legal dispute.

The Port of Los Angeles is still reviewing the latest decision, a port spokesperson said, but issued this preliminary written response:

“The port is committed to reaching full resolution of this matter. We continue to evaluate the appellate court decision but we’re encouraged the court upheld the port’s handling of key mitigation measures.”

Both the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, under a joint Clean Air Action Plan, are pushing to replace trucks and equipment with new, non-polluting models and face impending deadlines to do so. The mission has been complicated by the various clean energy technologies still being tested that can perform the heavy-duty work needed and by the lack of commercial availability for such equipment that does exist in some test models.

China Shipping could not be reached for comment. Its Los Angeles and New Jersey Corporate telephone lines appear to be all disconnected or no longer in operation. There was no answer or voicemail option offered when the local terminal itself was called.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, among a number of plaintiffs in the case, hailed the appellate court decision, stating it will force the port to take “long-overdue measures to protect the health and well-being of residents and workers from diesel exhaust and other air pollutants.”

Margaret Hsieh, a senior attorney for the NRDC, said in a written response some measures the port must implement immediately include:

• Alternative Maritime Power (AMP): Requires 100% of China Shipping ships use AMP to lower emissions while docked at the terminal
• Vessel Speed Reduction Program: Requires 100% of ships comply with speed-limit restrictions when approaching the terminal, resulting in lower emissions.
• Yard tractor pilot project: Requires a one-year pilot program for electric yard tractors. If the pilot program succeeds, the port must replace 50% of the yard tractors at the terminal with electric units within five years.

In a written response, the port said the court found in its favor in some areas, demonstrating “substantial evidence,” including:

• For the port’s decision to not require drayage trucks calling at the China Shipping Terminal to utilize liquified natural gas.
• For the port’s decision to not adopt an alternative mitigation measure for reducing emissions for drayage trucks calling at the terminal.
• For the port’s decision to not adopt a zero-emission demonstration project for cargo-moving equipment such as top handlers and large forklifts.

In early 2023, a trial court found the port was in violation of CEQA — the California Environmental Quality Act — but allowed the terminal to continue operating without required pollution-cutting measures as the port updated its environmental review.

The most recent appeals court decision handed down in late December reversed that decision, the NRDC said.

“The port has been violating the law and prioritizing profits over people for over two decades now,” Hsieh said in a written statement. “The court’s opinion makes clear that this must come to an end. Rather than continuing to defy the law and delay implementing much-needed pollution-control measures, the port should take leadership in innovating and implementing clean technologies.”

The overall dispute began when a coalition of community and environmental justice groups brought litigation in 2001 to enforce CEQA and address the pollution emanating from China Shipping.

Residents in San Pedro and Wilmington have long complained about the impacts of the port industry.

“The (latest) court decision is a huge step in the right direction,” said Chuck Hart of the San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United, one of the plaintiffs, in a written statement. “Now it is the port’s turn to do the right thing and update their operations.”