Port Report: Shippers and rail align for Maersk’s automation plan

The board narrowly approved the permit three weeks earlier. But the Los Angeles City Council voted to override the earlier approval, forcing the board to reconsider the issue.

Board members who opposed the permit want APM to address issues such as the impact that automation will have on Pier 400’s unionized workforce.

But an industry trade group with board members drawn from Amazon (Nasdaq: AMZN) and Home Depot (NYSE: HD) said the project is aligned with a major goal of the Southern California ports: reduce air emissions. 

The California Air Resources Board is considering a regulation that would require all cargo handling equipment at ports and rail yards to have zero emissions starting in 2026. 

The Coalition for Responsible Transportation (CRT) said APM’s plans to introduce electrified cargo handling equipment “is an excellent example of how the maritime industry can and does make substantial environmental improvements.” 

But the “decision by the City Council of Los Angeles to deny permits for the installation and operation of the generation equipment necessary to take full advantage of the air quality benefits of the planned electric cargo handling equipment is decidedly contrary to the clean air objectives of the port and region,” CRT said.

Similarly, The California Railroads, a group comprised of BNSF (NYSE: BRK.A), Union Pacific (NYSE: UNP) and short-line operators, said it will oppose a bill that is aimed directly at Maersk’s automation plan. 

California Assembly member Mike Gipson (D-Los Angeles), who represents the port districts, introduced a bill that would give the state’s land commission authority to approve any automation project that occurs at a California port.

Along with losing the environmental benefits of introducing zero-emissions cargo handling technology, The California Railroads said the bill would hurt the competitiveness of the state’s ports and send more discretionary cargo to other states.

The California Railroads said the bill will “simply add a political decision-making layer to an already long approval process for automation projects at the ports; pick winners and losers depending on which terminals are allowed to automate, creating a competitive advantage for automated terminals over non-automated terminals; and make future port collective bargaining agreements unreliable at best, since the process in this bill bypasses those agreements, thereby causing alarm throughout the cargo industry.”

Energy logistics expands in Houston Ship Channel

Enterprise Products plans to increase loading of LPG, crude and other energy products. (Safety4Sea)

Japan sees no problems in IMO 2020 test

Vessels were able to switch seamlessly to low-sulfur fuel from regular high-sulfur fuel. (World Maritime News)

DP World lining up $1 billion bond

One of the world’s biggest ports operators to use proceeds for acquisition of offshore vessel company. (ShippingWatch)

Hedge funds looking at IMO 2020 plays

Freight rate indices, oil price derivatives are some of the ways traders looking to bet on low-sulfur rules. (Ship & Bunker)