Latest news with #AmericanAssociationofPortAuthorities
Bloomberg
19-05-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
Trump Crane Tariffs Would Cost US Ports $6.7 Billion, Group Says
Import tariffs imposed on Chinese-built cranes could cost key US cargo handling facilities nearly $6.7 billion and inhibit infrastructure investment, according to a group that represents 81 ports across the country. 'Ports would have no choice but to pay these tariffs or drastically scale back their port modernization plans,' said Cary Davis, chief executive officer of the American Association of Port Authorities. 'That affordability problem leads to a capacity problem.'
Yahoo
21-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Regulator vows to back US exporters fearful about Trump's shipping fees
WASHINGTON — Federal Maritime Commission Chairman Louis Sola told port executives that a priority under his tenure would be assisting U.S. exporters, but that didn't quell concerns about the effect that million-dollar port fees planned against Chinese vessel operators would have on American ports. 'Exports, particularly energy and agriculture, could be priced out and make competitors from other nations more affordable for our customers abroad,' an attendee told Sola at a legislative conference sponsored by the American Association of Port Authorities in Washington this week, after Sola gave a keynote speech. 'From your perspective, and the new administration's perspective, do you think there's a willingness to alter what has been proposed to take into account what would be the effects on exports, particularly since American exports seem to be a priority?' Sola – who emphasized he was speaking on his own behalf and not for the FMC or the Trump administration – responded that the U.S. trade representative (USTR), which is proposing the fees following an investigation into China's shipping practices, is 'very well aware' of how the fines could impact American exporters. 'And we have drawn up our concerns to [USTR] to represent everybody here in the room,' he said. 'I can say that we are definitely advocating for U.S. exporters and the U.S.-flag fleet.' Under the USTR proposal, unveiled by the Trump administration in February, ships constructed in China would face fees of up to $1.5 million per U.S. port call. Vessel operators with even one Chinese-built ship in their fleet could be charged $500,000 per call, while Chinese shipping companies like Cosco would incur $1 million per call for any vessel, regardless of its origin. The unprecedented fees aim to counter China's dominance in global shipbuilding and maritime transport but could inadvertently disrupt U.S. trade flows and supply chains. Brian Clark, executive director of the North Carolina State Ports Authority, has been told by major port customers that should USTR move ahead with the fees, carriers will consolidate their port calls to a minimum number of major ports to minimize costs, bypassing smaller ports like his. 'Not only would carriers remove midsized ports from rotations entirely, precipitating the sure demise of such ports, but larger ports would experience immense congestion leading to inefficiencies worse than what was experienced during the peak of the pandemic supply chain disruptions,' Clark wrote in comments filed on Friday with USTR. 'Without access to port alternatives like the Port of Wilmington and the Port of Morehead City, North Carolina businesses will face higher transportation costs, driven by significant increases in first- and last-mile expenses to reach major ports.' John McCown, a container shipping expert, told USTR that the fees would have more adverse consequences than tariffs, particularly on exports. 'By having the proposed fees apply to all ships whether involved with imports or exports, they will effectively be a direct tariff on exports … and the American jobs linked to those exports,' he warned. The fees have raised concern about possible effects from all parts of the U.S. supply chain, including trucking. 'The trucking industry is still in a deep recession and companies are going out of business all over the country,' wrote Mitchell Bros. Truck Line, a drayage trucking company serving the ports of Seattle and Tacoma, Washington, in comments to USTR. 'These policies would be catastrophic for our industry as a whole. We need policies that promote economic growth and promote a sense of stability. These policies would cause major disruption and create extreme economic instability.' Sola was confident, however, that the trade policies being implemented by the administration would ultimately benefit the U.S. maritime sector, and attested to President Donald Trump's focus on the sector. 'I've spoken to him on numerous occasions about shipping, and he understands the supply chain as well. We've never had a president prioritize shipping the way this one has' in the first two months of an administration, Sola told conference attendees. But he cautioned that with Trump emphasizing shipping, 'a lot of things may affect you in a bad way and may give you some concern. Don't discredit at first sight; go ahead and work through it. The president is going to use a chain saw at first and then he's going to use a scalpel. So if you have concerns on [executive orders] or proposed legislation, now's the time to be involved. 'That being said, we're also going to see an investment in the United States maritime sector that I don't think that we have seen in my lifetime, and that is really saying something.' US port charges on China vessels add to supply chain uncertainty US opening investigation into container shipping choke points June sets record for China-US containers Click for more FreightWaves articles by John Gallagher. The post Regulator vows to back US exporters fearful about Trump's shipping fees appeared first on FreightWaves.
Yahoo
18-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
America's ports have labored to clean up pollution. Will that continue?
LOS ANGELES (AP) — On a gray March afternoon at the Port of Los Angeles, the largest in the U.S., powerful electric top-handlers whir, beep and grind as they motor back and forth, grabbing trailers from truck beds and stacking them as they move on or off the mighty container ships that ferry goods across the Pacific. Some of the ships, rather than burning diesel to sustain operations as they sit in harbor, plug into electricity instead. The shift to electricity is part of efforts to clean up the air around America's ports, which have long struggled with pollution that chokes nearby neighborhoods and jeopardizes the health of people living there. The landmark climate law championed by former President Joe Biden earmarked $3 billion to boost those efforts. Some of the people who live near U.S. hubs now worry that President Donald Trump's administration could seek to cancel or claw back some of that money. 'Our area is disproportionately affected by pollution directly related to the ports activity,' said Theral Golden, who's lived in the West Long Beach area for more than 50 years. He pointed to the rivers of trucks moving back and forth on nearby highways and overpasses. 'It's all part of the same goods movement effort, and it has to be cleaned up.' The Biden money aims to slash 3 million metric tons of carbon pollution across 55 ports in more than two dozen states, through cleaner equipment and vehicles, plus infrastructure and community engagement resources. Some ports say they have already spent hundreds of millions to replace older, dirtier equipment. Members of the American Association of Port Authorities, representing more than 130 public port authorities in the U.S. and beyond, are planning at least $50 billion more of decarbonization projects. Many are easy: for example, drayage trucks — which drive short distances between ports and nearby warehouses — are good candidates for electrification since they don't have to go far between charges. The Biden money wasn't enough to completely solve the problem — project requests alone topped $8 billion, per the Environmental Protection Agency — but it was a substantial investment that many experts, including Sue Gander, a director at the research nonprofit World Resources Institute, said would 'have a real impact.' They also said it was the biggest outlay of federal funding they'd seen toward the problem. But Trump, from his first day back in the White House, has attacked much of his predecessor's climate policies in the name of 'energy dominance'. He's sought to roll back clean energy, air, water and environmental justice policies and frozen federal funding, disrupting community organizations and groups planning on the funds for everything from new solar projects to electric school buses to other programs. EPA spokesperson Shayla Powell said the agency has worked to enable payment accounts for infrastructure law and Inflation Reduction Act grant recipients, 'so funding is now accessible.' While one port said the program was set to be active, others were waiting for the federal grant funding review process to be completed or were monitoring the situation. Decades of pollution The nation's 300 public and private shipping ports have been centers of pollution for decades. There, the goods Americans want — from cars to building materials to orange juice — are moved by mostly diesel-fueled cranes, trucks and locomotives that emit planet-warming carbon dioxide and cancerous toxins that contribute to heart disease, asthma and shorter life spans. In addition to thousands of longshoremen, truckers and other workers, port operations affect some 31 million Americans living nearby, according to the EPA, often in largely Black, Latino and low-income communities. Some ports have managed to get a little cleaner through state regulation, diesel pollution reduction efforts, international maritime requirements to cut emissions, and private investment. In voluntary emissions reporting, hubs including the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach and New York and New Jersey say some aspects of their operations have significantly improved over the past two decades. But by many of the ports' own accounts, they are still releasing tons of sulfur oxides, particulate matters, nitrogen oxides and more. Certain emissions have grown. Independent groups confirm this. The South Coast Air Quality Management District — a regulatory agency for parts of the Los Angeles region — said that while San Pedro emissions have dropped with more reduction efforts, that pace has slowed. The ports still contribute significantly to local emissions. 'Communities nearby are still going to be vulnerable," said Houston resident Erandi Treviño, cofounder of outreach group the Raíces Collab Project. Local advocates and frontline groups like hers think Trump's attack on pollution regulation will harm further efforts. Treviño takes several medications and uses an inhaler to manage fatigue, stomachaches, headaches and body pain that she blames on pollution from the Port of Houston. The port itself said pollutants dropped from 2013 to 2019, but some emissions from more vessel activity increased. Houston itself has been flagged by the American Lung Association as one of America's dirtiest cities based on ozone and year-round particle pollution, though the ALA didn't detail the sources of pollution. Ed Avol, a University of Southern California professor emeritus in clinical medicine, said the motivation to clean up air pollution to protect human and environmental health is clear. But the 'whipsaw back-and-forth of the current administration's decision-making process' makes it hard to move forward, he said. 'In the previous administration, billions of dollars were provided to work towards zero air emissions," he said. "In the current Trump administration, the clear intent seems to be to move away from electrification. And that will mean for the millions of people that live around the ports and downwind of the ports, poor air quality, more health effects.' Efforts with mixed results Despite being major contributors to U.S. economic activity, ports say they are financially stretched by pressure to automate operations and by contentious labor issues. And moving to electric equipment or vehicles 'might not be the best option,' said ports association government relations director Ian Gansler. Electric equipment is more expensive than diesel-fueled, ports might need more of it due to charging time requirements and it might take up more room in a port. Meanwhile, upgrading electrical service at a port could cost more than $20 million per berth, and some ports have dozens of berths. Ports, too, have to work with utilities to make sure they have enough power. All this comes as imports have grown. Freight activity could rise 50% by 2050. according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. Meanwhile, multiple agencies govern, operate in and regulate ports, said Fern Uennatornwaranggoon, climate campaign director for ports at environmental organization Pacific Environment, making it difficult to track 'how many pieces of equipment are still diesel, how many pieces have been transitioned, how many more we need to go.' ___ Alexa St. John is an Associated Press climate reporter. Follow her on X: @alexa_stjohn. Reach her at ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
The Independent
18-03-2025
- Business
- The Independent
America's port communities fear efforts to reduce pollution are at risk under Trump
On a gray March afternoon at the Port of Los Angeles, the largest in the U.S., powerful electric top-handlers whir, beep and grind as they motor back and forth, grabbing trailers from truck beds and stacking them as they move on or off the mighty container ships that ferry goods across the Pacific. Some of the ships, rather than burning diesel to sustain operations as they sit in harbor, plug into electricity instead. The shift to electricity is part of efforts to clean up the air around America 's ports, which have long struggled with pollution that chokes nearby neighborhoods and jeopardizes the health of people living there. The landmark climate law championed by former President Joe Biden earmarked $3 billion to boost those efforts. Some of the people who live near U.S. hubs now worry that President Donald Trump 's administration could seek to cancel or claw back some of that money. 'Our area is disproportionately affected by pollution directly related to the ports activity,' said Theral Golden, who's lived in the West Long Beach area for more than 50 years. He pointed to the rivers of trucks moving back and forth on nearby highways and overpasses. 'It's all part of the same goods movement effort, and it has to be cleaned up.' The Biden money aims to slash 3 million metric tons of carbon pollution across 55 ports in more than two dozen states, through cleaner equipment and vehicles, plus infrastructure and community engagement resources. Some ports say they have already spent hundreds of millions to replace older, dirtier equipment. Members of the American Association of Port Authorities, representing more than 130 public port authorities in the U.S. and beyond, are planning at least $50 billion more of decarbonization projects. Many are easy: for example, drayage trucks — which drive short distances between ports and nearby warehouses — are good candidates for electrification since they don't have to go far between charges. The Biden money wasn't enough to completely solve the problem — project requests alone topped $8 billion, per the Environmental Protection Agency — but it was a substantial investment that many experts, including Sue Gander, a director at the research nonprofit World Resources Institute, said would 'have a real impact.' They also said it was the biggest outlay of federal funding they'd seen toward the problem. But Trump, from his first day back in the White House, has attacked much of his predecessor's climate policies in the name of 'energy dominance'. He's sought to roll back clean energy, air, water and environmental justice policies and frozen federal funding, disrupting community organizations and groups planning on the funds for everything from new solar projects to electric school buses to other programs. EPA spokesperson Shayla Powell said the agency has worked to enable payment accounts for infrastructure law and Inflation Reduction Act grant recipients, 'so funding is now accessible.' While one port said the program was set to be active, others were waiting for the federal grant funding review process to be completed or were monitoring the situation. Decades of pollution The nation's 300 public and private shipping ports have been centers of pollution for decades. There, the goods Americans want — from cars to building materials to orange juice — are moved by mostly diesel-fueled cranes, trucks and locomotives that emit planet-warming carbon dioxide and cancerous toxins that contribute to heart disease, asthma and shorter life spans. In addition to thousands of longshoremen, truckers and other workers, port operations affect some 31 million Americans living nearby, according to the EPA, often in largely Black, Latino and low-income communities. Some ports have managed to get a little cleaner through state regulation, diesel pollution reduction efforts, international maritime requirements to cut emissions, and private investment. In voluntary emissions reporting, hubs including the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach and New York and New Jersey say some aspects of their operations have significantly improved over the past two decades. But by many of the ports' own accounts, they are still releasing tons of sulfur oxides, particulate matters, nitrogen oxides and more. Certain emissions have grown. Independent groups confirm this. The South Coast Air Quality Management District — a regulatory agency for parts of the Los Angeles region — said that while San Pedro emissions have dropped with more reduction efforts, that pace has slowed. The ports still contribute significantly to local emissions. 'Communities nearby are still going to be vulnerable," said Houston resident Erandi Treviño, cofounder of outreach group the Raíces Collab Project. Local advocates and frontline groups like hers think Trump's attack on pollution regulation will harm further efforts. Treviño takes several medications and uses an inhaler to manage fatigue, stomachaches, headaches and body pain that she blames on pollution from the Port of Houston. The port itself said pollutants dropped from 2013 to 2019, but some emissions from more vessel activity increased. Houston itself has been flagged by the American Lung Association as one of America's dirtiest cities based on ozone and year-round particle pollution, though the ALA didn't detail the sources of pollution. Ed Avol, a University of Southern California professor emeritus in clinical medicine, said the motivation to clean up air pollution to protect human and environmental health is clear. But the 'whipsaw back-and-forth of the current administration's decision-making process' makes it hard to move forward, he said. Efforts with mixed results Despite being major contributors to U.S. economic activity, ports say they are financially stretched by pressure to automate operations and by contentious labor issues. And moving to electric equipment or vehicles 'might not be the best option,' said ports association government relations director Ian Gansler. Electric equipment is more expensive than diesel-fueled, ports might need more of it due to charging time requirements and it might take up more room in a port. Meanwhile, upgrading electrical service at a port could cost more than $20 million per berth, and some ports have dozens of berths. Ports, too, have to work with utilities to make sure they have enough power. All this comes as imports have grown. Freight activity could rise 50% by 2050. according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. Meanwhile, multiple agencies govern, operate in and regulate ports, said Fern Uennatornwaranggoon, climate campaign director for ports at environmental organization Pacific Environment, making it difficult to track 'how many pieces of equipment are still diesel, how many pieces have been transitioned, how many more we need to go.' ___ Alexa St. John is an Associated Press climate reporter. Follow her on X: @alexa_stjohn. Reach her at ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
Associated Press
18-03-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
America's port communities fear efforts to reduce pollution are at risk under Trump
LOS ANGELES (AP) — On a gray March afternoon at the Port of Los Angeles, the largest in the U.S., powerful electric top-handlers whir, beep and grind as they motor back and forth, grabbing trailers from truck beds and stacking them as they move on or off the mighty container ships that ferry goods across the Pacific. Some of the ships, rather than burning diesel to sustain operations as they sit in harbor, plug into electricity instead. The shift to electricity is part of efforts to clean up the air around America's ports, which have long struggled with pollution that chokes nearby neighborhoods and jeopardizes the health of people living there. The landmark climate law championed by former President Joe Biden earmarked $3 billion to boost those efforts. Some of the people who live near U.S. hubs now worry that President Donald Trump's administration could seek to cancel or claw back some of that money. 'Our area is disproportionately affected by pollution directly related to the ports activity,' said Theral Golden, who's lived in the West Long Beach area for more than 50 years. He pointed to the rivers of trucks moving back and forth on nearby highways and overpasses. 'It's all part of the same goods movement effort, and it has to be cleaned up.' The Biden money aims to slash 3 million metric tons of carbon pollution across 55 ports in more than two dozen states, through cleaner equipment and vehicles, plus infrastructure and community engagement resources. Some ports say they have already spent hundreds of millions to replace older, dirtier equipment. Members of the American Association of Port Authorities, representing more than 130 public port authorities in the U.S. and beyond, are planning at least $50 billion more of decarbonization projects. Many are easy: for example, drayage trucks — which drive short distances between ports and nearby warehouses — are good candidates for electrification since they don't have to go far between charges. The Biden money wasn't enough to completely solve the problem — project requests alone topped $8 billion, per the Environmental Protection Agency — but it was a substantial investment that many experts, including Sue Gander, a director at the research nonprofit World Resources Institute, said would 'have a real impact.' They also said it was the biggest outlay of federal funding they'd seen toward the problem. But Trump, from his first day back in the White House, has attacked much of his predecessor's climate policies in the name of 'energy dominance'. He's sought to roll back clean energy, air, water and environmental justice policies and frozen federal funding, disrupting community organizations and groups planning on the funds for everything from new solar projects to electric school buses to other programs. EPA spokesperson Shayla Powell said the agency has worked to enable payment accounts for infrastructure law and Inflation Reduction Act grant recipients, 'so funding is now accessible.' While one port said the program was set to be active, others were waiting for the federal grant funding review process to be completed or were monitoring the situation. Decades of pollution The nation's 300 public and private shipping ports have been centers of pollution for decades. There, the goods Americans want — from cars to building materials to orange juice — are moved by mostly diesel-fueled cranes, trucks and locomotives that emit planet-warming carbon dioxide and cancerous toxins that contribute to heart disease, asthma and shorter life spans. In addition to thousands of longshoremen, truckers and other workers, port operations affect some 31 million Americans living nearby, according to the EPA, often in largely Black, Latino and low-income communities. Some ports have managed to get a little cleaner through state regulation, diesel pollution reduction efforts, international maritime requirements to cut emissions, and private investment. In voluntary emissions reporting, hubs including the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach and New York and New Jersey say some aspects of their operations have significantly improved over the past two decades. But by many of the ports' own accounts, they are still releasing tons of sulfur oxides, particulate matters, nitrogen oxides and more. Certain emissions have grown. Independent groups confirm this. The South Coast Air Quality Management District — a regulatory agency for parts of the Los Angeles region — said that while San Pedro emissions have dropped with more reduction efforts, that pace has slowed. The ports still contribute significantly to local emissions. 'Communities nearby are still going to be vulnerable,' said Houston resident Erandi Treviño, cofounder of outreach group the Raíces Collab Project. Local advocates and frontline groups like hers think Trump's attack on pollution regulation will harm further efforts. Treviño takes several medications and uses an inhaler to manage fatigue, stomachaches, headaches and body pain that she blames on pollution from the Port of Houston. The port itself said pollutants dropped from 2013 to 2019, but some emissions from more vessel activity increased. Houston itself has been flagged by the American Lung Association as one of America's dirtiest cities based on ozone and year-round particle pollution, though the ALA didn't detail the sources of pollution. Ed Avol, a University of Southern California professor emeritus in clinical medicine, said the motivation to clean up air pollution to protect human and environmental health is clear. But the 'whipsaw back-and-forth of the current administration's decision-making process' makes it hard to move forward, he said. Efforts with mixed results Despite being major contributors to U.S. economic activity, ports say they are financially stretched by pressure to automate operations and by contentious labor issues. And moving to electric equipment or vehicles 'might not be the best option,' said ports association government relations director Ian Gansler. Electric equipment is more expensive than diesel-fueled, ports might need more of it due to charging time requirements and it might take up more room in a port. Meanwhile, upgrading electrical service at a port could cost more than $20 million per berth, and some ports have dozens of berths. Ports, too, have to work with utilities to make sure they have enough power. All this comes as imports have grown. Freight activity could rise 50% by 2050. according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. Meanwhile, multiple agencies govern, operate in and regulate ports, said Fern Uennatornwaranggoon, climate campaign director for ports at environmental organization Pacific Environment, making it difficult to track 'how many pieces of equipment are still diesel, how many pieces have been transitioned, how many more we need to go.' ___
