AB 1023 creates a statutory framework for the Zero Emissions Port Electrification and Operations (ZEPEO) project at the Port of Los Angeles. The bill sets out a defined project scope and a special permitting regime intended to speed the buildout of electrical infrastructure needed for terminal electrification and operations.
The measure also draws legal lines around who reviews and issues coastal development permits tied to the project, places constraints on the deployment of fully automated cargo handling equipment as part of ZEPEO, and declares the project subject to the Port of Los Angeles’ Port Master Plan. Those design choices are framed as necessary to meet 2030 emission goals and preparatory needs for the 2028 Olympic Games in Los Angeles.
At a Glance
What It Does
AB 1023 defines ZEPEO as an LADWP-led grid expansion for the Port of Los Angeles and creates a bespoke coastal permitting regime for project-related development. It centralizes permit review in the Los Angeles Harbor Department, establishes project-specific eligibility rules, and accelerates state agency decisions on required permits.
Who It Affects
The bill directly affects the Los Angeles Harbor Department, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, terminal operators and tenants within the Port of Los Angeles, and state agencies that issue environmental and infrastructure permits. It also impacts labor interests that operate cargo-handling equipment and local jurisdictions typically responsible for coastal development review.
Why It Matters
By reallocating permitting authority and imposing strict decision deadlines, the bill shortens the regulatory path for major port electrification work — reshaping who controls coastal development approvals for a high‑priority infrastructure project. The prohibition on certain automated equipment also locks in specific operational choices with long-term procurement and technology implications.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1023 formally defines the Zero Emissions Port Electrification and Operations project (ZEPEO) as a Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) grid-expansion program for the Port of Los Angeles. The bill lists concrete components of the project: expansion of existing Receiving Stations (Q and C), construction of a switching station in Wilmington, new distribution lines, and network stations at each container terminal and Outer Harbor.
The statutory definition ties the project to associated work needed to complete ZEPEO, ensuring those pieces fall inside the same statutory regime.
The bill channels coastal development permitting for project-related development through the Los Angeles Harbor Department (LAHD). Under the statute, any coastal development permit tied to ZEPEO that would otherwise require multiple-jurisdiction review is treated as within the Los Angeles Harbor District; LAHD becomes the sole reviewer and issuer of the coastal development permit for the project and the project, as approved by LAHD, is deemed consistent with local land use plans.
The measure also requires that any additional terminal-level development that is not exempt must obtain a separate coastal development permit that conforms to the Port Master Plan.AB 1023 places two operational constraints on the project. First, it explicitly excludes the deployment, purchase, or installation of any fully automated cargo handling equipment or infrastructure that would support fully automated equipment; the bill references the statutory definition of “fully automated” already in California law.
Second, the statute imposes a strict timing rule on state-level permit reviews: a state agency that receives a permit application for ZEPEO or associated work must reach a decision within a fixed short period, or the permit is automatically deemed issued. The legislative findings anchor these choices to a narrow policy objective — accelerating grid upgrades to meet air quality goals and event-readiness targets — and the bill includes a statement that it is a special statute for the Port of Los Angeles.
The act also contains a non-substantive technical edit to the California Conservation Corps findings.
The Five Things You Need to Know
ZEPEO is statutorily defined to add at least 200 megawatts of electrical capacity for the Port of Los Angeles through expansion of Receiving Station Q, Receiving Station C, a new switching station, new distribution lines, and network stations at terminals and Outer Harbor.
The bill makes the Los Angeles Harbor Department the sole authority to review and issue any coastal development permit associated with ZEPEO that would otherwise require multi‑jurisdictional review.
AB 1023 prohibits deploying, purchasing, or installing any fully automated cargo handling equipment or POLA‑owned or tenant‑owned infrastructure that supports fully automated equipment as part of the project, referencing Section 2192 of the Streets and Highways Code for the definition.
Any additional development at terminals within the Port Master Plan boundary that is not already exempt must secure a separate coastal development permit that conforms to the Port of Los Angeles’ Port Master Plan.
A state agency that receives a permit application for ZEPEO or related work must decide on issuance within 90 days of submission, and if the agency fails to act within that period the permit is deemed issued.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Why the Legislature says a special rule is needed
This section collects three legislative findings: (1) existing state law bars public funds from buying fully automated cargo handling equipment; (2) ZEPEO, as defined, is ineligible for certain federal Clean Ports funding because it is treated as a stand‑alone utility upgrade; and (3) the San Pedro Bay Ports' 2030 clean-air goals will require expanded grid and fueling infrastructure to support human-operated electrified equipment. Those findings frame the bill’s operating constraints and its urgency argument tied to emissions targets and the 2028 Olympics.
Statutory definition and scope of ZEPEO
Section 30650 sets a concrete project definition: an LADWP-led grid expansion that must add at least 200 MW for POLA and surrounding communities and lists specific physical components (receiving station expansions, a switching station, distribution lines, and terminal network stations). The definition also pulls 'associated projects' (e.g., Avalon Promenade and Gateway Project) into the article’s coverage, bringing ancillary work under the same statutory regime.
LAHD becomes the single coastal permit reviewer and local-plan arbiter
Section 30651(a) treats ZEPEO‑related coastal development permit applications as within the Los Angeles Harbor District and assigns sole review and issuance authority to the Los Angeles Harbor Department. Subsection (b) adds that the project as approved by LAHD is to be deemed consistent with the land use plans of affected local jurisdictions, effectively removing the typical multi-jurisdictional consistency determination process for these applications.
No fully automated cargo equipment; separate permits for non‑exempt terminal projects
Section 30651(c) forbids inclusion of fully automated cargo handling equipment or POLA-owned/tenant-owned infrastructure supporting such equipment within ZEPEO. Section 30651(d) requires any additional development at terminals that isn’t exempt under existing law to obtain a separate coastal development permit that conforms to POLA’s Port Master Plan, preserving a conformity requirement for follow-on work.
90‑day decision timeline and deemed issuance
Section 30652 imposes a 90‑day deadline for state agencies to act on permit applications related to ZEPEO or associated projects. If an agency does not render a decision within that window, the statute provides that the permit is 'deemed issued.' That creates a hard statutory fill‑in for routine administrative timelines and shifts delay risk away from applicants.
Special‑statute justification and reimbursement carve‑out
The bill explicitly declares itself a special statute for the Port of Los Angeles because of the project's timing needs, and it states no state reimbursement to local agencies is required under the state constitution because affected entities can levy charges to cover costs. These clauses aim to shield the measure from constitutional challenges about special legislation and unfunded mandates.
Nonsubstantive update to California Conservation Corps findings
The final statutory change amends Section 14000 to make a nonsubstantive edit to existing legislative findings about the California Conservation Corps. The bill does not alter program duties or funding for the corps.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Infrastructure across all five countries.
Explore Infrastructure in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) — Gains a clear statutory customer (POLA) and authorization to build large‑scale grid assets tied to an established project definition, reducing jurisdictional uncertainty for infrastructure deployment.
- Port of Los Angeles and terminal operators seeking electrification — Obtain a streamlined permitting path and a single local agency reviewer, which lowers multi‑jurisdiction coordination costs and shortens approval paths for permitted ZEPEO work.
- Labor represented workers at terminals — The prohibition on fully automated cargo handling equipment preserves demand for human‑operated equipment and related jobs, protecting labor interests that oppose full automation.
- Nearby communities and air‑quality managers — Stand to benefit from earlier grid upgrades that enable electrification of cargo equipment and reduced local emissions if the infrastructure is completed on the bill’s accelerated schedule.
Who Bears the Cost
- Los Angeles Harbor Department (LAHD) — Takes on sole responsibility for coastal development permitting for ZEPEO, which concentrates review workload and potential political and legal risk in LAHD without additional funding in the bill.
- POLA tenants and terminal operators that plan to deploy automation — Face a statutory ban on deploying fully automated cargo handling equipment as part of ZEPEO, which may force alternative procurement choices or additional investments in human‑operated electrified equipment.
- State permitting agencies (e.g., coastal, environmental) — Must meet a 90‑day deadline or allow permits to be deemed issued, creating pressure to accelerate internal review processes or risk losing the ability to condition or deny permits.
- Local cities and jurisdictions adjacent to POLA — Lose direct control over coastal consistency decisions for ZEPEO projects, which shifts land‑use authority away from local planning bodies and could increase local political or fiscal exposure.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill trades comprehensive local control and deliberate review for speed: it prioritizes rapid infrastructure deployment to meet emissions and event‑readiness targets, but in doing so it concentrates authority and shortens review windows, creating a classic public‑interest dilemma between expedited delivery of critical infrastructure and preserving inclusive, thorough environmental and local‑control safeguards.
The bill creates a narrow, project‑specific regime that reallocates core coastal permitting authority and shortcuts standard review timelines — that combination raises several implementation risks. Concentrating review in LAHD removes the usual multi‑jurisdictional consistency checks; unless LAHD builds robust cross‑agency coordination, the practical effect may be faster approvals but weaker integration of local concerns and technical oversight.
The 90‑day deemed‑issued rule accelerates decisions but invites litigation over whether agencies had a fair opportunity to impose conditions, potentially generating post‑issuance challenges that delay construction despite the statutory timeline.
The prohibition on fully automated cargo handling equipment is a blunt policy choice. It preserves labor demand and aligns with state restrictions on public funding for automation, but it also forecloses certain technological pathways that could improve terminal efficiency and reduce operating emissions in the long run.
The bill’s linkage to federal funding ineligibility (treating ZEPEO as a utility upgrade) and its special‑statute framing create additional friction: the measure accelerates state approvals but does not address funding shortfalls or clarify how to reconcile federal program rules, which could leave projects approved under this regime underfunded or exposed to later federal compliance issues.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.