L.A. Air Board Approves Port Pollution Pact — Critics Say It Leaves Accountability Unclear

L.A. Air Board Approves Port Pollution Pact — Critics Say It Leaves Accountability Unclear

Southern California air regulators voted overwhelmingly to give themselves the ability to fine the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach if those facilities fail to deliver on commitments to transition to zero‑emission equipment.

What passed: The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) governing board approved the cooperative agreement by a 9–1 vote. The pact requires the ports to submit phased plans to install zero‑emission infrastructure — such as electric truck chargers and hydrogen fueling stations — with deadlines for major equipment categories: heavy‑duty trucks and most cargo‑moving equipment by 2028; smaller locomotives and harbor craft by 2029; and large vessels and cargo ships by 2030.

Enforcement and trade‑offs: Missed deadlines would trigger fines of $50,000 to $200,000; revenue would be deposited into a clean‑air fund to benefit communities disproportionately affected by port pollution. In exchange, the AQMD agreed not to adopt new regulatory rules for the ports for five years.

Why it matters: The San Pedro Port Complex — the twin ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach — is the largest container port in the Western Hemisphere, handling roughly 40% of U.S. container imports. Despite years of efforts, much of the region’s goods movement is still powered by diesel engines that emit toxic particles and nitrogen oxides, a precursor to smog. Officials say the cooperative approach aims to manage the technical and logistical challenges of decarbonizing a busy trade gateway.

Kathy Ramirez: 'I urge you not to sign away the opportunity to do more to help address the region's air pollution crisis in exchange for a pinky promise.'

Environmental advocates criticized the agreement for lacking concrete emissions‑reduction targets and many technical specifics. Key details — such as the types of fuels or energy sources to be used and the number and location of chargers or fueling stations — will not be finalized or published for years, prompting concerns that the pact delays enforceable reductions.

Industry response: Port and shipping representatives hailed the vote as a pragmatic path to decarbonization. William Bartelson of the Pacific Maritime Association described the negotiated approach as practical and inclusive, reflecting real‑world compromises needed to implement zero‑emission infrastructure across a complex supply chain.

Negotiation history: For nearly a decade, the AQMD has shifted between pursuing strict regulation and negotiating a cooperative pact. Earlier proposals included requiring the ports to offset smog‑forming emissions through clean‑air projects such as solar installations or EV charging. The AQMD negotiated higher penalties than initially proposed by the ports — effectively doubling fines from the ports' earlier offer — and limited the pause on rulemaking to five years rather than the 10 the industry sought.

Critics called the agreement a 'plan for a plan.' Fernando Gaytan, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, said the pact risks being a delay tactic rather than delivering near‑term emission reductions.

The contract also allows either party — the AQMD or the ports — to terminate the agreement with a 45‑day written notice. AQMD executive officer Wayne Nastri said that clause preserves the agency's ability to pivot back to formal rulemaking if progress does not materialize.

Public comment at the board meeting was heated; opponents chanted and the AQMD cleared the gallery while the board debated the measure. Board member Veronica Padilla‑Campos cast the lone dissenting vote, saying the pact lacked necessary emissions cuts and offered 'no clear accountability' to nearby communities. Board member Nithya Raman acknowledged flaws in the agreement but voted in favor, arguing it was the only realistic path to begin addressing pollution at the region's single largest source.

Next steps: The agreement still requires approval from the Port of Los Angeles commissioners and the Port of Long Beach Harbor Commission at meetings later this year.

Source: Originally reported in the Los Angeles Times.