APM’s Broken Promises And POLA’s Neglect

“It’s like with China Shipping,” Sierra Club member Peter Warren said. “There’s no cop on the beat.” Seven months before LA Harbor Commission Vice-President Diane Middleton spoke out at the commission’s Aug. 10 meeting, calling attention to questions about APM Terminal’s implementation of zero- and/or near-zero emission technology and its labor impacts, the Sierra Club began making similar, but more extensive inquiries in a Jan. 4 letter, with a follow-up on June 14.

APM, which is owned by shipping giant Maersk, appears to have purchased 130 diesel-electric hybrid auto-straddlers, rather than all-electric ones available from the same manufacturer (Kalmar), and it has deleted plans to install electric charging stations, even though its original Level One Coastal Development Permit was for “landside infrastructure changes necessary to effectively operate battery-electric powered equipment.”

Electrification was repeatedly promised by APM. For example, a March 15, 2019 comment letter to the Harbor Commission said, “The Project will replace diesel powered container handling equipment with battery-powered electric container handling equipment and will reduce diesel emissions by reconfiguring the traffic patterns at Pier 400.” And before the city council vetoed approval of that permit, a “summary of benefits” it sent to Councilman Joe Buscaino stated that “The terminal will use electric-powered, self-guided straddle carriers.”

Other promises are also in doubt, with port staff unable to answer crucial questions so far. Overall promises to reduce 2.2 million gallons of diesel fuel per year appear to be wholly unsubstantiated.

“Maersk is one of the leading shipping companies in the world,” said Yassi Kavezade, a Sierra Club senior campaign representative. “This matters because many terminals like APM have promised the port to do the right thing and install cleaner technology at their operations and they continue to find ways to not uphold their promise.” In particular, she said, “This terminal matters because it works with Maersk, one of the largest shippers and they promised to lead the way with cleaner operations and they haven’t.”

Middleton reported on a site visit to APM Terminals and requested a staff report on the number of battery charging stations installed and operational, the percentage of auto-straddlers diesel-powered vs. alternative fuel, and the reduction of labor in the last 12 months. As a result, this was followed by similar action from Councilman Tim McOsker, in the form of a city council motion asking if “jobs were eliminated on a broken promise.”

“Job loss is terrible, but if it’s job loss based on a false promise, it’s worse.” McOsker said in a Aug. 31 Random Lengths interview (Go to our website, www.randomlengthsnews.com, to see the full interview on our YouTube channel).

McOsker’s motion was heard in the Trade, Travel and Tourism committee on Sept. 5, where POLA was asked to provide a written report within a month.

“The Port will respond during that time frame and that report will be made public,” said POLA spokesman Phillip Sanfield. “Additionally, the Port will follow up with an in-person presentation to the Trade, Travel and Tourism committee and take questions.”

But this focus of attention came seven months after the Sierra Club began making similar, but more detailed and extensive inquiries. “I’m gratified to know that the Sierra Club is looking into this because this can be very helpful to the hearing that we’re going to be having,” McOsker told Random Lengths. “I will get a copy or make sure that we have a copy and incorporate it into the request that I made.”

But the problem isn’t just what APM is or isn’t doing. It’s also POLA’s lax oversight, reminiscent of the 11 China Shipping mitigation measures that were unenforced for years with POLA’s blessing, or the broader problem that POLA never wrote the measures into China Shipping’s lease agreement.

Similarly, questions raised in the Sierra Club’s initial letter were generally met with professions of ignorance or lack of jurisdiction. POLA had “no information,” and/or provided permits rather than answering questions about what had actually been installed.

The Sierra Club first asked for the “make/model of the auto-straddlers or any other container handling equipment,” and “specifications, testing/commissioning and emissions reports of the equipment,” to which the port’s engineering division responded that it “has no information on the equipment procured and operated by APMT.”

In its June response, the Sierra Club asked, “If the POLA Engineering Division has no information about the equipment, do other POLA departments or authorities know if it is emissions compliant?”

While the permit didn’t involve direct purchase of equipment, it did cover the infrastructure the Kalmar auto-straddlers will use. And since the port’s purpose in granting the permit was to meet greenhouse gas goals, it needs such information to know if it’s reaching its goals. So, after asking detailed questions about how the hybrid auto-straddlers were operating in order to reach their promised emissions savings (apparently their electric plug-ins are not for charging the drivetrain power batteries, so diesel remains the prime mover), the Sierra Club concluded with a big-picture question, “Has POLA compared emissions data from the prior operating scenario to the current operations at Pier400? Or compared emissions at Pier 400 to other, similar terminals at POLA?” POLA has yet to respond.

Second, the Sierra Club asked, “How many charging stations for battery-powered equipment have been installed at Pier 400?” and could they be inspected by a third party? POLA responded with four engineer permits. But what these actually showed was shocking. “No charging stations have been installed at Pier 400,” the Sierra Club wrote in its June 15 follow-up. While there had been plans for future ones in the Phase II drawings, “The Phase IV drawings show that the infrastructure for future charging stations has been completely removed from the plans.” This completely contradicts the supposed purpose of the permit.

Third, the Sierra Club asked, “What new vertical racking system(s) for plug-in electric powered refrigerated containers has been installed at Pier 400?” as well as how much emissions had been reduced, and could they be inspected by a third party. POLA once again responded with engineer permits, adding, “The Port has no information on operation of the facilities, and access to the facility is controlled by APMT.” Once again, no oversight.

In its June follow-up, the Sierra Club asked, “If the Port has no information on the operations of the Pier 400 facilities, how does the Port know any laws or regulations are complied with, or assess fees and taxes? How does POLA do emissions inventories or compile air quality information if it has ‘no information on the operations of the facilities’ that it owns?

Again, POLA has yet to respond.

Fourth, the Sierra Club asked, “What specific new traffic barriers and fencing have been installed to reconfigure traffic patterns within Pier 400?” and had the impacts been measured and analyzed. POLA again responded with engineer permits, so the Sierra Club reiterated, “Our question to POLA is if there are measurable environmental benefits to the new vehicle traffic patterns, compared to the prior traffic patterns before this project was constructed.”

Fifth, the Sierra Club asked, “What supporting electrical infrastructure (conduit, etc.) for the recharging stations and vertical racking system has been installed at Pier 400?” POLA again responded with engineer permits. But while the reefer racking systems had been installed, the Sierra Club noted in its followup, “all infrastructure specifically designated for future charging stations has been removed (and called out as so in the revision notes) in the Phase IV drawing set (dated 10/5/2022).” And so they asked ‘Why?’ “Does that mean there are no longer any plans for future charging stations?” Installing them later would obviously be disruptive to operations.

And so, they asked, “Does APM Terminals have plans to install all-electric auto-straddlers, and the charging infrastructure to support them, in the future? Will it be possible to convert the diesel-electric Kalmar HSC 445A auto-straddlers to all-electric operation in the future?”

In short, will the purpose of the Coastal Development Permit be fulfilled?

“Right now our next step is just to raise public awareness about this and see what the report looks like,” Kavezade said. “If this fits a pattern, we’d like to build a case in other terminals.”

But for Warren, who’s been fighting similar battles for years, the pattern is already clear. Often those battles are just to get an environmental impact report done so that environmental harms can be identified and responded to.

“This is another example that there is no cop on the beat in the Port of Los Angeles,” he said. And it’s only gotten worse since the port disbanded the Port Community Advisory Committee, which had routinely reviewed all such projects, among other things.

“If PCAC was still there, there would be a route to discover this, at least a mechanism that exists where people could ask questions,” Warren said.

Which is why Random Lengths asked McOsker’s director of communications, Sophie Gilchrist, “If the councilman is committed to working to make the POLA responsive to community needs and the environment, would he consider calling for something like a revived Port Community Advisory Committee, created for that purpose by Mayor James Hahn in 2001?”

Gilchrist suggested he might. “The Councilmember is open to all measures for public information and transparency at the Port,” she said. “When the report comes back he will evaluate the next steps.”