• ITVI.USA
    15,353.780
    -79.690
    -0.5%
  • OTLT.USA
    2.732
    0.005
    0.2%
  • OTRI.USA
    20.880
    0.030
    0.1%
  • OTVI.USA
    15,332.660
    -75.700
    -0.5%
  • TSTOPVRPM.ATLPHL
    3.280
    -0.020
    -0.6%
  • TSTOPVRPM.CHIATL
    3.190
    0.050
    1.6%
  • TSTOPVRPM.DALLAX
    1.560
    -0.030
    -1.9%
  • TSTOPVRPM.LAXDAL
    3.420
    0.090
    2.7%
  • TSTOPVRPM.PHLCHI
    2.220
    0.050
    2.3%
  • TSTOPVRPM.LAXSEA
    4.080
    0.000
    0%
  • WAIT.USA
    126.000
    1.000
    0.8%
  • ITVI.USA
    15,353.780
    -79.690
    -0.5%
  • OTLT.USA
    2.732
    0.005
    0.2%
  • OTRI.USA
    20.880
    0.030
    0.1%
  • OTVI.USA
    15,332.660
    -75.700
    -0.5%
  • TSTOPVRPM.ATLPHL
    3.280
    -0.020
    -0.6%
  • TSTOPVRPM.CHIATL
    3.190
    0.050
    1.6%
  • TSTOPVRPM.DALLAX
    1.560
    -0.030
    -1.9%
  • TSTOPVRPM.LAXDAL
    3.420
    0.090
    2.7%
  • TSTOPVRPM.PHLCHI
    2.220
    0.050
    2.3%
  • TSTOPVRPM.LAXSEA
    4.080
    0.000
    0%
  • WAIT.USA
    126.000
    1.000
    0.8%
American Shipper

NIT League opposes bill on Californian box fees

NIT League opposes bill on Californian box fees

   The National Industrial Transportation League last week opposed the recent S.B. 760 bill by the California State Senate approving legislation that would impose fees on containers moving through the state’s ports to finance security, infrastructure improvements and environmental mitigation programs.

   Peter J. Gatti, executive vice president of the NIT League, wrote to the California assembly, which now has jurisdiction over the bill, to say that “S.B. 760 serves as a highly questionable source of funding for a host of local projects without considering the direct and ancillary consequences that could result from its enactment.”

   The Senate bill 760 would place a fee of $30 per TEU on cargo moving through the state. The NIT League said it and its members are working with federal and state authorities to address the issue of freight congestion and delays in transit times through the state’s ports.

   “However one consequence of S.B. 760 as currently drafted will be the creation of an infrastructure which will only exist to handle reduced volumes of cargo as a result of the increased costs of doing business through California’s ports,” Gatti warned.

   “Already due to the threat of S.B. 760 many companies throughout the U.S. are making plans that will alter their supply chain strategies so as to detour around the anticipated higher costs of doing business in the state,” he added. “Alternative ports and infrastructure are now being considered in Mexico and Canada as well as under-utilized East Coast ports which see this kind of legislation as an opportunity to handle Asian cargoes once only reserved for California’s ports.”

   Gatti urged California legislators to recognize that the cost of this legislation “will simply be too high for many companies that would otherwise want to do business in this state.”

   The letter can be found at http://www.nitl.org/CAAssemblySB760.pdf .

   Shippers using Californian ports are already facing new PierPass fees if they pick up containers from Los Angeles and Long Beach terminals during weekday, daytime hours

We are glad you’re enjoying the content

Sign up for a free FreightWaves account today for unlimited access to all of our latest content

By signing in for the first time, I give consent for FreightWaves to send me event updates and news. I can unsubscribe from these emails at any time. For more information please see our Privacy Policy.