Washington state drops Alaska container fee plan

Washington state drops Alaska container fee plan After several weeks of interstate acrimony over a proposed Washington state container fee, lawmakers in Olympia, Wash., have downgraded the plan to a study looking at the potential economic impact of a container fee.
   The Washington State Senate Transportation committee approved a new version of the container fee bill on Thursday, asking the state to study the proposed fee, its effects on container traffic within the state, and other options to raise transportation funds.
   The original bill, sponsored by Washington State Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, proposed a $50 fee per TEU. Money collected from the fee would have gone toward a freight congestion relief fund to pay for improvements to the state's transportation system.
   State opponents to the bill worried that a fee would drive cargo away from Washington to Canada, Oregon or California. The Alaska Legislature also took notice, issuing a joint resolution Wednesday unanimously opposing the container fee.
   The resolution's sponsor, Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Haines, told the Petersburg Pilot that the added cost of shipping would be economically devastating to Alaska.
   'Ninety-seven percent of goods shipped to Alaska arrive via shipping containers — almost all of them from Washington state,' he said. 'The fees would add an estimated $40 million to $50 million a year to the cost of freight and be borne by consumers.'
   Domestic liner services operated by Horizon Lines and Totem Ocean Trailer Express originate in Tacoma, and the fees originally proposed might have boosted costs as much as $200 per forty-foot box on a round-trip.
   Some of Thomas' fellow Alaska legislators, most notably Sen. Johnny Ellis, D-Anchorage, are angry. 'This was an act of aggression from our southern neighbors.' Ellis told the Petersburg Pilot that the halls of the capitol are buzzing with the talk of retaliation.
   Washington makes 'truckloads — no, supertankers — of money off the state of Alaska,' said Ellis, and lawmakers are discussing their options should such a fee pass.
   The Washington state freight industry, who opposed the original container fee version of the plan, is also expressing displeasure with the new study-only version of the bill.
   Representatives from the Washington Public Ports Association, the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association and the Port of Tacoma have all said the new version focuses too much on the use of a container tax.
   Tim Farrell, Port of Tacoma executive director, told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that he has not seen a clear definition of what congestion problem a fee on containers is supposed to solve. For example, he said it would not be fair to use fees from Tacoma containers to pay for road infrastructure projects since the majority of international containers that arrive in the Port of Tacoma leave by rail.
   Representatives from the Washington Retail Association, Pacific Seafood Processors, Wilcox Farms/Washington Food Industry, railroads, maritime and railroad unions, Pacific Merchant Shipping Association and Columbia River Steamship Operators also weighed in against it.
   They claimed 70 percent of containerized freight moving through Washington’s ports is discretionary and that imposition of a fee would divert container freight movement away from the state’s ports and hurt the economy.
   They also said the fee might be unconstitutional because it impedes interstate commerce, import/export activity and the movement of containerized cargo as governed by federal law and international treaty.
   Representatives from the Washington Trucking Association and cities of Everett, Kent, Federal Way, Renton and Puyallup told the Washington Senate that they supported a user fee that would be used to fund maintenance and improvements to freight infrastructure.
   The new version of the bill will need to pass both houses of the Washington State Legislature and be signed by the governor to become law.