<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">HOW Claims Article On Court Case WrongAn article in your paper (JofC, Oct. 7) described the </div>

HOW Claims Article On Court Case WrongAn article in your paper (JofC, Oct. 7) described the

<div>HOW Claims ArticleOn Court Case WrongAn article in your paper (JofC, Oct. 7) described the action the Supreme Court took in HOW's litigation with the state of Georgia over our status as a risk retention group under federal law. Unfortunately the article was incorrect in its reporting of the facts and in concluding that HOW will have to register as an insurance company in each state of operation.We have been accused of concealing the fact that we are now out of business because of the Supreme Court's ruling. Nothing could be further from the truth.The federal District Court in Georgia,...

HOW Claims Article On Court Case WrongAn article in your paper (JofC, Oct. 7) described the action the Supreme Court took in HOW's litigation with the state of Georgia over our status as a risk retention group under federal law. Unfortunately the article was incorrect in its reporting of the facts and in concluding that HOW will have to register as an insurance company in each state of operation. We have been accused of concealing the fact that we are now out of business because of the Supreme Court's ruling. Nothing could be further from the truth. The federal District Court in Georgia, and the District Court earlier in Delaware, did rule that HOW is a legitimate operation of a risk retention group, but the Georgia State Insurance Department appealed the case to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court ruled that there was not enough evidence to determine whether the risk for builders was spread in years three through 10 of the program, and whether risk spreading was the primary activity of the group. The case was sent back to the District Court for more evidence on these two points. But at the same time, the court did not rule that HOW cease operations. HOW is in full operation in Georgia and we are not required to register as an insurance company there or in any other state other than our chartering state. Even if the court's decision were to go against HOW, it would only affect our operations in Georgia. The Risk Retention Act was recently amended to broaden the scope of activity of risk retention groups and we feel that the amendments further weaken the state insurance department's arguments. The facts are that the HOW Insurance Co. continues to operate in all states under the Risk Retention Act; we continue to be fully and aggressively regulated by our state of domicile, Delaware; we continue to insure a portion of the product liability risks of our builder members; and we continue to grow and be a responsible and successful member of the insurance community. Jeffrey S. Bragg President HOW Insurance Co. Washington, D.C. Staff Works Hard At Marad Offices Marc Felice expresses concern (JofC, Nov. 17) over some incorrect figures that appeared in one table of the 50-page report, "Inventory of American Intermodal Equipment 1986," prepared by this office. I accept full responsibility for these errors as director of this office. I am appalled, however, and do not comprehend why The Journal of Commerce would publish Mr. Felice's characterization of me and my staff as ''uninterested government paper-pushers who just wait out the required number of years so that they can retire with comfortable government pensions." I consider this personal attack an unwarranted criticism and uncharacteristi c reporting on the part of The Journal of Commerce, an organization I have respected and worked with for many years. As many in industry, government and the media, including your own staff, can attest, this office does reputable work and uses the taxpayer's dollar well. I am proud of the performance, hard work and dedication of the men and women who staff this office. John M. Pisani, Director Office of Port and Intermodal Development Maritime Administration Washington, D.C. Arbitrator's Role Is Clarified Concerning your article on Henry Engelbrecht (JofC, Oct. 23),it is important that the shipping industry understands that marine arbitrators are not appointed "to represent" the party who selects them. It is a basic tenet of the procedures and code of ethics of the Society of Marine Arbitrators Inc., that party arbitrators shall come to the dispute with a totally open mind, be ready to hear the evidence offered by both sides and to render a totally impartial decision based on the evidence. Michael A. van Gelder Marine Arbitrator New York, N.Y.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">In addition to various ongoing supply chain disruptions that US agricultural shippers face, they must now contend with the highly volatile tariff environment that is forcing them to seek new markets for their products.</div>

In addition to various ongoing supply chain disruptions that US agricultural shippers face, they must now contend with the highly volatile tariff environment that is forcing them to seek new markets for their products.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">US exporters of agricultural products will have to navigate a minefield of tariffs, supply chain challenges and phytosanitary restrictions through the balance of 2025 as they seek to protect access to existing overseas markets and develop new ones. Shippers of grains, cotton, hay, fruits, nuts and forest products will face, by far, their greatest obstacles in China, which is engaged in a full-blown trade war with the Trump administration. China, still the top destination for US agricultural exports, is deploying a multi-faceted attack on US ag shippers in retaliation for the huge tariffs the US has implemented on imports from China. In addition to levying tariffs as high as 125% on imports of US agricultural and forest products, China is restricting or eliminating imports of certain products due to phytosanitary concerns. US log exports are a prime example, said Hayden Swofford, independent administrator of the Pacific Northwest Asia Shippers Association, whose members include forest products shippers. China had been tariffing forest products from the US at 5% to 12.5% based on the origin points in the US, but then in March it banned the importation of all US forest products due to concerns over the alleged infestation of bark beetles. “China plays this game at multiple levels,” Swofford said. Containerized exports of US agricultural products totaled 1.5 million TEUs in 2024. That was up 6.2% from 2023 but down 2.4% from 2019, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. In the first two months of 2025, shipments have slipped 6.4% compared with the same period last year.<div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="60c6cf3b-836b-442c-b891-d423954185a8"></dynamic-object></div>China’s share of total US ag exports in 2024 was 15.8%, down from just under 21% in 2023 and the most recent five-year high of 23.7% in 2022, according to PIERS. Still, “Ag shippers are more exposed to China than other sectors,” said Paul Bingham, director of transportation consulting for S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence. In its ongoing tariff standoff with the US, China is targeting specific US export sectors but oftentimes does not tariff those same products from other countries that may be direct competitors of the US, giving other countries a competitive pricing advantage, Bingham said. That scenario played out in 2018 when President Donald Trump levied tariffs on imports from China, which responded with tariffs on US ag products. US hay exporters had to seek markets in other countries to replace the sales it lost in China, said Scot Courtright, COO of Washington state-based Courtright Enterprises, which specializes in the logistics and export of forage. A shift in destination markets can result in logistical problems, Courtright said. European hay exporters seven years ago increased their shipments to China, but as a result they had less hay to ship to their existing markets in the Middle East. So US hay exporters stepped up their exports to the Middle East, Courtright said. But as China has extensive liner services from the US, destinations in the Middle East do not. “Getting vessel space to the Middle East is difficult, and the shipment can be transshipped two or three times,” Courtright said. <h3>Ag shippers may lose their largest market </h3>Tariff and trade frictions between the US and China will be especially harmful for cotton exporters, said Buddy Allen, president and CEO of the American Cotton Shippers Association. “It is possible that China can go from being the largest market for US cotton to the smallest,” Allen said. And soybean exporters now face a major issue of replacing China, the largest market for US soybean exports, with multiple, smaller shipments to other countries, said Mike Steenhoek, executive director of the Soybean Transportation Coalition. “China is number one, but it’s less viable now,” he said. Other viable markets for US soybean exporters are Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, Mexico and North Africa, Steenhoek said. Brazil and Argentina are the largest competitors of US soybean exporters in the China market. <h3>Ag shippers still face supply chain issues </h3>US agricultural shippers last year faced a host of supply chain issues, including draft restrictions at the Panama Canal and attacks on commercial vessels in the Red Sea by Houthi militants, forcing the diversion of most liner traffic around southern Africa. Shippers also had to contend with the threat of a strike by the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) against employers at East and Gulf coasts, in addition to a brief work stoppage in early October. Importers and exporters diverted discretionary cargo to West Coast ports, which resulted in extended rail container dwell times and congestion in Seattle-Tacoma and Los Angeles-Long Beach. And carriers continue to struggle with poor on-time reliability to both coasts, which makes it difficult for US exporters to keep to the delivery schedules their overseas buyers rely on for supply chain reliability, Steenhoek said. “The power of predictability is compromised,” Steen Hoek said. “I would rather that service be consistently good rather than occasionally exceptional.” In addition to unreliability on the ocean side, cotton shippers face continually changing delivery deadlines for their loaded containers at marine terminals and inland hubs. That uncertainty not only disrupts supply chains but also results in tangible costs for exporters, said Mike Symonanis, director of strategic network at Louis Dreyfus. “We are live-load shippers,” Symonanis said. Agricultural shippers said that in the volatile environment of tariffs and counter-tariffs, they are stepping up their lobbying in Washington through trade organizations to ensure that Congress and the White House understand the importance of ag exports to the US economy. “This is our first, second and third objective,” said the American Cotton Shippers Association’s Allen. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

US exporters of agricultural products will have to navigate a minefield of tariffs, supply chain challenges and phytosanitary restrictions through the balance of 2025 as they seek to protect access to existing overseas markets and develop new ones. Shippers of grains, cotton, hay, fruits, nuts and forest products will face, by far, their greatest obstacles in China, which is engaged in a full-blown trade war with the Trump administration. China, still the top destination for US agricultural exports, is deploying a multi-faceted attack on US ag shippers in retaliation for the huge tariffs the US has implemented on imports from China. In addition to levying tariffs as high as 125% on imports of US agricultural and forest products, China is restricting or eliminating imports of certain products due to phytosanitary concerns. US log exports are a prime example, said Hayden Swofford, independent administrator of the Pacific Northwest Asia Shippers Association, whose members include forest products shippers. China had been tariffing forest products from the US at 5% to 12.5% based on the origin points in the US, but then in March it banned the importation of all US forest products due to concerns over the alleged infestation of bark beetles. “China plays this game at multiple levels,” Swofford said. Containerized exports of US agricultural products totaled 1.5 million TEUs in 2024. That was up 6.2% from 2023 but down 2.4% from 2019, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. In the first two months of 2025, shipments have slipped 6.4% compared with the same period last year. China’s share of total US ag exports in 2024 was 15.8%, down from just under 21% in 2023 and the most recent five-year high of 23.7% in 2022, according to PIERS. Still, “Ag shippers are more exposed to China than other sectors,” said Paul Bingham, director of transportation consulting for S&P Global Market Intelligence. In its ongoing tariff standoff with the US, China is targeting specific US export sectors but oftentimes does not tariff those same products from other countries that may be direct competitors of the US, giving other countries a competitive pricing advantage, Bingham said. That scenario played out in 2018 when President Donald Trump levied tariffs on imports from China, which responded with tariffs on US ag products. US hay exporters had to seek markets in other countries to replace the sales it lost in China, said Scot Courtright, COO of Washington state-based Courtright Enterprises, which specializes in the logistics and export of forage. A shift in destination markets can result in logistical problems, Courtright said. European hay exporters seven years ago increased their shipments to China, but as a result they had less hay to ship to their existing markets in the Middle East. So US hay exporters stepped up their exports to the Middle East, Courtright said. But as China has extensive liner services from the US, destinations in the Middle East do not. “Getting vessel space to the Middle East is difficult, and the shipment can be transshipped two or three times,” Courtright said. Ag shippers may lose their largest market Tariff and trade frictions between the US and China will be especially harmful for cotton exporters, said Buddy Allen, president and CEO of the American Cotton Shippers Association. “It is possible that China can go from being the largest market for US cotton to the smallest,” Allen said. And soybean exporters now face a major issue of replacing China, the largest market for US soybean exports, with multiple, smaller shipments to other countries, said Mike Steenhoek, executive director of the Soybean Transportation Coalition. “China is number one, but it’s less viable now,” he said. Other viable markets for US soybean exporters are Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, Mexico and North Africa, Steenhoek said. Brazil and Argentina are the largest competitors of US soybean exporters in the China market. Ag shippers still face supply chain issues US agricultural shippers last year faced a host of supply chain issues, including draft restrictions at the Panama Canal and attacks on commercial vessels in the Red Sea by Houthi militants, forcing the diversion of most liner traffic around southern Africa. Shippers also had to contend with the threat of a strike by the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) against employers at East and Gulf coasts, in addition to a brief work stoppage in early October. Importers and exporters diverted discretionary cargo to West Coast ports, which resulted in extended rail container dwell times and congestion in Seattle-Tacoma and Los Angeles-Long Beach. And carriers continue to struggle with poor on-time reliability to both coasts, which makes it difficult for US exporters to keep to the delivery schedules their overseas buyers rely on for supply chain reliability, Steenhoek said. “The power of predictability is compromised,” Steen Hoek said. “I would rather that service be consistently good rather than occasionally exceptional.” In addition to unreliability on the ocean side, cotton shippers face continually changing delivery deadlines for their loaded containers at marine terminals and inland hubs. That uncertainty not only disrupts supply chains but also results in tangible costs for exporters, said Mike Symonanis, director of strategic network at Louis Dreyfus. “We are live-load shippers,” Symonanis said. Agricultural shippers said that in the volatile environment of tariffs and counter-tariffs, they are stepping up their lobbying in Washington through trade organizations to ensure that Congress and the White House understand the importance of ag exports to the US economy. “This is our first, second and third objective,” said the American Cotton Shippers Association’s Allen. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Maritime

Supply chain

Container Shipping News

Port News

Container lines

Trans-Atlantic

Trans-Pacific

Uncertain trade environment especially fraught for US ag shippers

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The US Trade Representative (USTR) laid out actions to counter China’s maritime dominance that could put Cosco Shipping and subsidiary OOCL on the hook for millions when their ships call the US. </div>

The US Trade Representative (USTR) laid out actions to counter China’s maritime dominance that could put Cosco Shipping and subsidiary OOCL on the hook for millions when their ships call the US.

<div class="phx-topic">The US Trade Representative (USTR) has narrowed the scope of its tariffs against China’s maritime industry to a fee based on the cargo capacity or container volume of Chinese-operated and -built ships entering US ports. The more targeted actions follow industry warnings that earlier proposals <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-port-tax-would-scramble-ocean-services-raise-shipper-costs-drewry-5952046">would increase costs for US shippers and pose an existential threat to smaller ports</a>, but China-based ocean carriers could still face millions in fees under the tariffs. In its list of tariff actions that take effect Oct. 14, the USTR said Chinese ocean carriers will be subject to a fee of $50 per net ton of capacity upon arrival at a US port. The fee will go up to $80 after one year, rising in each year before topping out at $140 in 2028. Net tonnage measures a ship’s overall cargo capacity, regardless of vessel type. The fee will only be charged at the first port of call on a vessel string and will not stack on top of other port calls. The fee will only be charged five times per year on each vessel. Ocean carriers based outside of China operating Chinese-built ships will face a fee based on either net tonnage or container volume, whichever is higher. Ships built in other countries will not face the same fees, nor will fees be assessed based on the percentage of Chinese-built ships in a carrier’s fleet or orders at Chinese shipyards. The tonnage fee for non-Chinese carriers starts at $18, escalating to $23 by April 2026 and topping out at $33 in 2028. The per-container fee starts at $120 and rises to $153 next year and $250 in 2028. Non-Chinese ocean carriers will be able to waive the fee if they take delivery of a US-built ship of at least the same size within three years. The fees will not apply to Chinese-built ships in US-flag fleets, container ships that are 4,000-TEU or smaller, voyages of less than 2,000 nautical miles, or Chinese-built ships owned by US-based carriers. The capacity-based tariffs come after a series of proposals that included fees of up to $1.5 million based on US port calls by Chinese carriers, and similar fees on non-Chinese ocean carriers with Chinese-built ships in their fleets and orders at Chinese shipyards. Other proposals included an export cargo preference for US-built ships. After two days of hearings, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ustrs-china-tonnage-tax-would-squeeze-smaller-trades-stakeholders-5967638">the USTR said it wanted to reduce the potential impact on US shippers</a>, particularly exporters and dry-bulk shippers. Still, the USTR plans tariffs based on the capacity of China-built ships and will still charge fees that country’s ocean carriers. The goal of the fees is “to further disincentivize use of Chinese shipping services,” the USTR said. <h3>Cosco, OOCL in crosshairs </h3>The USTR’s fees will have the largest impact on ships operated by Cosco Shipping and its subsidiary Orient Overseas Container Line (OOCL). For example, the 13,092-TEU Cosco Hope made five calls to the Port of New York and New Jersey over the last 12 months as part of the Ocean Alliance’s Liberty Bridge service from Europe to the US East Coast, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. With a net tonnage of 63,544 tons, according to Sea-web, the Cosco Hope would have incurred a fee of $3.2 million for each port call. A similar capacity ship operated by a non-Chinese carrier would result in a fee of about $1 million per call. The 13,386-TEU Cosco Italy made 10 calls to the Port of Long Beach during the same period as part of Ocean Alliance’s Hibiscus Express service, Sea-web data show. Its net tonnage would put its fee at $3.3 million per call. The 16,828-TEU OOCL Bauhinia made three port calls to Long Beach as part of the South China Pacific Service. Its net tonnage would result in a fee of $2.8 million per call, according to the USTR’s formula. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a> </div>

The US Trade Representative (USTR) has narrowed the scope of its tariffs against China’s maritime industry to a fee based on the cargo capacity or container volume of Chinese-operated and -built ships entering US ports. The more targeted actions follow industry warnings that earlier proposals would increase costs for US shippers and pose an existential threat to smaller ports , but China-based ocean carriers could still face millions in fees under the tariffs. In its list of tariff actions that take effect Oct. 14, the USTR said Chinese ocean carriers will be subject to a fee of $50 per net ton of capacity upon arrival at a US port. The fee will go up to $80 after one year, rising in each year before topping out at $140 in 2028. Net tonnage measures a ship’s overall cargo capacity, regardless of vessel type. The fee will only be charged at the first port of call on a vessel string and will not stack on top of other port calls. The fee will only be charged five times per year on each vessel. Ocean carriers based outside of China operating Chinese-built ships will face a fee based on either net tonnage or container volume, whichever is higher. Ships built in other countries will not face the same fees, nor will fees be assessed based on the percentage of Chinese-built ships in a carrier’s fleet or orders at Chinese shipyards. The tonnage fee for non-Chinese carriers starts at $18, escalating to $23 by April 2026 and topping out at $33 in 2028. The per-container fee starts at $120 and rises to $153 next year and $250 in 2028. Non-Chinese ocean carriers will be able to waive the fee if they take delivery of a US-built ship of at least the same size within three years. The fees will not apply to Chinese-built ships in US-flag fleets, container ships that are 4,000-TEU or smaller, voyages of less than 2,000 nautical miles, or Chinese-built ships owned by US-based carriers. The capacity-based tariffs come after a series of proposals that included fees of up to $1.5 million based on US port calls by Chinese carriers, and similar fees on non-Chinese ocean carriers with Chinese-built ships in their fleets and orders at Chinese shipyards. Other proposals included an export cargo preference for US-built ships. After two days of hearings, the USTR said it wanted to reduce the potential impact on US shippers , particularly exporters and dry-bulk shippers. Still, the USTR plans tariffs based on the capacity of China-built ships and will still charge fees that country’s ocean carriers. The goal of the fees is “to further disincentivize use of Chinese shipping services,” the USTR said. Cosco, OOCL in crosshairs The USTR’s fees will have the largest impact on ships operated by Cosco Shipping and its subsidiary Orient Overseas Container Line (OOCL). For example, the 13,092-TEU Cosco Hope made five calls to the Port of New York and New Jersey over the last 12 months as part of the Ocean Alliance’s Liberty Bridge service from Europe to the US East Coast, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. With a net tonnage of 63,544 tons, according to Sea-web, the Cosco Hope would have incurred a fee of $3.2 million for each port call. A similar capacity ship operated by a non-Chinese carrier would result in a fee of about $1 million per call. The 13,386-TEU Cosco Italy made 10 calls to the Port of Long Beach during the same period as part of Ocean Alliance’s Hibiscus Express service, Sea-web data show. Its net tonnage would put its fee at $3.3 million per call. The 16,828-TEU OOCL Bauhinia made three port calls to Long Beach as part of the South China Pacific Service. Its net tonnage would result in a fee of $2.8 million per call, according to the USTR’s formula. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com

North American ports

Scaled back USTR port tariff to hit Chinese carriers hardest

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While not ideal, the agreement reached at the IMO’s Maritime Environment Protection Committee at least puts a price on global emissions that will help narrow the yawning cost gap between fossil fuels and greener alternatives.</div>

While not ideal, the agreement reached at the IMO’s Maritime Environment Protection Committee at least puts a price on global emissions that will help narrow the yawning cost gap between fossil fuels and greener alternatives.

<div class="phx-topic">The compromise framework agreement that emerged from the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) climate talks in London last week – despite deep divisions from member states – has been hailed as a decisive step forward for the decarbonization of shipping. Even though no universal carbon levy was agreed to at the IMO’s 83rd Maritime Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), shipping’s global carbon emissions will carry progressively increasing charges for the first time. ”It’s a highly positive step towards achieving net-zero by the 2050 goal,” said Mark Brownstein, senior vice president of energy at climate campaigner Environmental Defense Fund. “While it's not everything one could have wanted, it does put a price on carbon and has the potential to materially jump start the development and deployment of the next generation of fuels that the shipping industry is going to need,” Brownstein told the Journal of Commerce in an interview this week. The MEPC83 meeting at the IMO’s headquarters on the bank of the Thames River was a closely watched gathering of member states where the mid-term measures centered around a fuel standard and pricing mechanism that were put forward for negotiation. But the meeting quickly exposed deep divisions between member states over a universal levy on carbon emissions, with <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-pulls-out-of-imo-climate-talks-threatens-retaliation-for-emissions-fees-5980359">the US refusing to attend</a> and even threatening retaliatory measures against any state imposing carbon fees on its ships. Brownstein played down the impact of the US’ refusal to participate. ”It’s clear that from the actions last week that while the US has a voice, it does not have a veto,” he said. “The US is a relatively small player in the global shipping industry, and I think that that also was a factor here.” An agreement was finally reached on the compromise framework that places specific reduction targets on fuel intensity in container shipping and will result in financial penalties for non-compliance. <h3>Full lifecycle of fuel covered in new measures </h3>A key standard in the new regulation will be the fuel intensity used by global shipping, measured on a well-to-wake basis that covers the full lifecycle of the fuel. Starting in 2028, ships must lower their fuel intensity by a certain percentage compared to the baseline set in 2008. There are two tiers when it comes to the reduction factors, with the base target of Tier 1 set at a 4% reduction in 2028. A ship will pay $380 for every ton of GHG emissions above the base reduction target. Tier 2 is the compliance target that is set at a 17% reduction in 2028. A ship falling between the base target and compliance target will pay $100 for every ton of GHG emissions or buy remedial units. Any ships outperforming the compliance target will earn surplus units, which can be banked for two years or traded with non-compliant ships. Reduction targets will increase every year, with expectations of a 65% reduction in carbon intensity by 2040. “It's hard to imagine a more challenging geopolitical backdrop to the negotiations, and hard not to see the influence of that in this result,” said Tristan Smith, associate professor at the London-based UCL Energy Institute. “But the outcome's significance for the sector cannot be ignored and is a major step forward.” Rico Luman, senior economist at global bank ING, agreed that while the outcome did not please everyone, it was a significant step forward along shipping’s path to net-zero emissions by 2050. “The IMO wanted to adopt a pricing scheme because that was the aim of these sessions, and it looks like they used a (compromise proposal) to at least agree on something on a global level,” Luman told the Journal of Commerce. “This is the first global mechanism of pricing for CO2 emissions and now the IMO can try to build support to develop this to a broader market-based framework,” he added. <h3>Regulation key to delivering green fuels at viable prices </h3>A lot of work lies ahead to tighten the emissions-cutting measures and narrow the pricing gap between current fossil fuels and greener alternatives. But global regulation was key to delivering renewable fuels at a commercially viable price, according to World Shipping Council (WSC) President and CEO Joe Kramek. “Liner shipping has already moved to kick-start decarbonization, with nearly 1,000 renewable-capable ships to be on the water by 2030,” Kramek said in a statement after the conclusion of MEPC83. “Outcomes from the IMO mean global regulations can now begin to leverage the record industry investment to meet decarbonization targets.” As the ocean shipping sector digests the outcome of MEPC83 and the measures taken to decarbonize the industry, data released this week by rate benchmarking platform Xeneta and Marine Benchmark show carrier emissions reached a record high in 2024, driven up by the diversions around southern Africa. Global container emissions increased 14% last year to 240.6 million tons, surpassing the previous record of 218.5 million tons set in 2021. But the record-breaking statistic should not be used as a stick to beat the maritime freight industry, Xeneta said in its analysis of the emissions data, pointing instead to ships sailing longer distances around the Cape of Good Hope to avoid attacks by Houthi militants operating from Yemen that began to escalate in the Red Sea in late 2023. “A new record high is the inevitable outcome of these diversions, both in terms of the increase in transport work and the record-high demand of laden containers being moved in 2024 as shippers responded to the Red Sea crisis by frontloading imports,” Xeneta said in a statement. Ocean carriers’ overall transport work, a measurement of tons of cargo moved multiplied by nautical miles sailed, increased 18% in 2024. That was mostly the result of fleet growth of 26% between December 2023 and December 2024 for ships with capacity between 14,500 and 20,000 TEUs. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The compromise framework agreement that emerged from the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) climate talks in London last week – despite deep divisions from member states – has been hailed as a decisive step forward for the decarbonization of shipping. Even though no universal carbon levy was agreed to at the IMO’s 83rd Maritime Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), shipping’s global carbon emissions will carry progressively increasing charges for the first time. ”It’s a highly positive step towards achieving net-zero by the 2050 goal,” said Mark Brownstein, senior vice president of energy at climate campaigner Environmental Defense Fund. “While it's not everything one could have wanted, it does put a price on carbon and has the potential to materially jump start the development and deployment of the next generation of fuels that the shipping industry is going to need,” Brownstein told the Journal of Commerce in an interview this week. The MEPC83 meeting at the IMO’s headquarters on the bank of the Thames River was a closely watched gathering of member states where the mid-term measures centered around a fuel standard and pricing mechanism that were put forward for negotiation. But the meeting quickly exposed deep divisions between member states over a universal levy on carbon emissions, with the US refusing to attend and even threatening retaliatory measures against any state imposing carbon fees on its ships. Brownstein played down the impact of the US’ refusal to participate. ”It’s clear that from the actions last week that while the US has a voice, it does not have a veto,” he said. “The US is a relatively small player in the global shipping industry, and I think that that also was a factor here.” An agreement was finally reached on the compromise framework that places specific reduction targets on fuel intensity in container shipping and will result in financial penalties for non-compliance. Full lifecycle of fuel covered in new measures A key standard in the new regulation will be the fuel intensity used by global shipping, measured on a well-to-wake basis that covers the full lifecycle of the fuel. Starting in 2028, ships must lower their fuel intensity by a certain percentage compared to the baseline set in 2008. There are two tiers when it comes to the reduction factors, with the base target of Tier 1 set at a 4% reduction in 2028. A ship will pay $380 for every ton of GHG emissions above the base reduction target. Tier 2 is the compliance target that is set at a 17% reduction in 2028. A ship falling between the base target and compliance target will pay $100 for every ton of GHG emissions or buy remedial units. Any ships outperforming the compliance target will earn surplus units, which can be banked for two years or traded with non-compliant ships. Reduction targets will increase every year, with expectations of a 65% reduction in carbon intensity by 2040. “It's hard to imagine a more challenging geopolitical backdrop to the negotiations, and hard not to see the influence of that in this result,” said Tristan Smith, associate professor at the London-based UCL Energy Institute. “But the outcome's significance for the sector cannot be ignored and is a major step forward.” Rico Luman, senior economist at global bank ING, agreed that while the outcome did not please everyone, it was a significant step forward along shipping’s path to net-zero emissions by 2050. “The IMO wanted to adopt a pricing scheme because that was the aim of these sessions, and it looks like they used a (compromise proposal) to at least agree on something on a global level,” Luman told the Journal of Commerce. “This is the first global mechanism of pricing for CO2 emissions and now the IMO can try to build support to develop this to a broader market-based framework,” he added. Regulation key to delivering green fuels at viable prices A lot of work lies ahead to tighten the emissions-cutting measures and narrow the pricing gap between current fossil fuels and greener alternatives. But global regulation was key to delivering renewable fuels at a commercially viable price, according to World Shipping Council (WSC) President and CEO Joe Kramek. “Liner shipping has already moved to kick-start decarbonization, with nearly 1,000 renewable-capable ships to be on the water by 2030,” Kramek said in a statement after the conclusion of MEPC83. “Outcomes from the IMO mean global regulations can now begin to leverage the record industry investment to meet decarbonization targets.” As the ocean shipping sector digests the outcome of MEPC83 and the measures taken to decarbonize the industry, data released this week by rate benchmarking platform Xeneta and Marine Benchmark show carrier emissions reached a record high in 2024, driven up by the diversions around southern Africa. Global container emissions increased 14% last year to 240.6 million tons, surpassing the previous record of 218.5 million tons set in 2021. But the record-breaking statistic should not be used as a stick to beat the maritime freight industry, Xeneta said in its analysis of the emissions data, pointing instead to ships sailing longer distances around the Cape of Good Hope to avoid attacks by Houthi militants operating from Yemen that began to escalate in the Red Sea in late 2023. “A new record high is the inevitable outcome of these diversions, both in terms of the increase in transport work and the record-high demand of laden containers being moved in 2024 as shippers responded to the Red Sea crisis by frontloading imports,” Xeneta said in a statement. Ocean carriers’ overall transport work, a measurement of tons of cargo moved multiplied by nautical miles sailed, increased 18% in 2024. That was mostly the result of fleet growth of 26% between December 2023 and December 2024 for ships with capacity between 14,500 and 20,000 TEUs. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

IMO deal on fuel intensity, pricing hailed as ‘major step forward’

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Some – but not all – LTL trucking companies are handling more imports as US tariffs take effect, but the market is otherwise weak, carriers and analysts say.</div>

Some – but not all – LTL trucking companies are handling more imports as US tariffs take effect, but the market is otherwise weak, carriers and analysts say.

<div class="phx-topic">The rush of imports into the US ahead of the implementation of tariffs has boosted less-than-truckload (LTL) freight volumes — but unevenly, sources tell the Journal of Commerce. LTL carriers close to major seaports and US border crossings are picking up “pull-forward” freight, with national carriers likely seeing less of an uptick than some regional carriers. One of the hot markets is <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/tariff-uncertainty-pushing-up-transportation-costs-at-us-mexico-border-5984698">along the US-Mexico border</a>, which has seen waves of freight spurred by the US-Mexico trade dispute. “We have seen a noticeable but manageable increase in our cross-border traffic at our Texas border facilities,” said Kent Williams, executive vice president of sales and marketing at Averitt, a Tennessee-based regional trucking company. The increase has primarily been in LTL volume, Williams said, though Averitt’s other business lines — which include truckload and drayage — have enjoyed higher demand since the beginning of March as well. “We have been busy over the course of the past 30 to 45 days with respect to our dray and transload business at all our portside facilities across the south, likely due to the push to get ahead of the tariffs,” Williams told the Journal of Commerce. But the other shoe, in terms of international imports, is about to fall. “Our international [non-vessel-operating common carrier] group is reporting a noticeable decrease in our import container bookings from China, which is no doubt due to the tariffs,” said Williams. Booking cancellations could leave some ships departing <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trans-pacific-blank-sailings-set-to-rise-after-china-bookings-drop-sharply-5984166">China half-empty through May</a>. That suggests any tariff-related bump in US LTL freight is likely to be short-lived. “We’re still dealing with a very soft market with no imminent sign of when it gets better,” said Mike Regan, chief relationship officer at TranzAct Technologies, a supply-chain consulting firm. The long-distance US LTL producer price index (PPI), a measure of all-inclusive LTL costs to shippers, dropped slightly in March after shooting up in January and February. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="397d0614-9019-449a-8ca0-64a882efbfbf"></dynamic-object></div>The PPI’s fluctuations may reflect some pulled-forward freight, but also temporary gains in manufacturing output and higher replacement rates in some LTL contracts. <h3>Tariffs and timing </h3>Some LTL executives and analysts, although not all, are reporting a slight bump in LTL demand that correlates with a “pull forward” of freight from Asia, Europe, Mexico and Canada, all targets of US tariffs. Estes Express, a national LTL carrier, may have had some pull-forward business in January and February, President Webb Estes told the Journal of Commerce. “It’s hard to ever say [an increase in volume] is definitely because of this or because of that,” Estes said. Bad weather and higher manufacturing output may have also affected shipment counts at Estes, the largest privately-owned US LTL company. “I would say in the last four weeks or so [the market has been] maybe 2% to 2.5% softer than I anticipated, but a whole lot of things can factor into that,” he said. For one, US manufacturing in March slipped to its lowest rate of expansion so far this year, dropping to 50.2 from 52.7 in February, according to the S&amp;P Global Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI). Even so, “there’s not been any monumental fall-off in volume,” said Estes. “It just hasn’t popped like we’re used to [in March and April].” “Our current LTL shipment numbers don’t show any increase, or decrease for that matter, based on pending tariffs,” said Chris Jamroz, CEO and executive chairman of long-distance LTL provider Roadrunner. “We have noticed some shippers pre-positioning freight and building inventory to stock in domestic warehouses, but these moves are mostly impacting airfreight, intermodal and truckload.” Shippers and analysts refer to a “steady state” market restrained by uncertainty over the Trump administration’s tariff plans and their impact on the global economy. More detail on LTL volume changes will become available as the large publicly-traded carriers release their first-quarter earnings over the next few weeks. “If we’re seeing anything, it’s steady [LTL] volumes,” said Aaron LaGanke, vice president of freight services at AFS Logistics, a third-party logistics provider, freight payment firm and producer of the quarterly TD Cowen / AFS Logistics Freight Index Forecast. LaGanke sees economic uncertainty holding back the market. “There are shippers who are pausing and asking, ‘What should we do?’” he said. “People want to make decisions based on data. When the information they get changes every day, it’s really hard to do that.” AFS Logistics expects its LTL freight index <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trump-tariff-chaos-restrains-us-truckload-ltl-markets-5979968">to decline 0.4 percentage point</a> from the first quarter to 63.4 in the second quarter — still up 0.7% from a year ago. “If there are spikes in demand, they’re in specific geographic areas, not overall,” he said. Wall Street investment firm Stifel still expects flat to moderate growth in LTL volumes in the second quarter, with “choppy demand fundamentals.” “It’s difficult to ascertain whether demand has been pushed further out or has dried up,” Stifel said in a note to clients. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The rush of imports into the US ahead of the implementation of tariffs has boosted less-than-truckload (LTL) freight volumes — but unevenly, sources tell the Journal of Commerce. LTL carriers close to major seaports and US border crossings are picking up “pull-forward” freight, with national carriers likely seeing less of an uptick than some regional carriers. One of the hot markets is along the US-Mexico border , which has seen waves of freight spurred by the US-Mexico trade dispute. “We have seen a noticeable but manageable increase in our cross-border traffic at our Texas border facilities,” said Kent Williams, executive vice president of sales and marketing at Averitt, a Tennessee-based regional trucking company. The increase has primarily been in LTL volume, Williams said, though Averitt’s other business lines — which include truckload and drayage — have enjoyed higher demand since the beginning of March as well. “We have been busy over the course of the past 30 to 45 days with respect to our dray and transload business at all our portside facilities across the south, likely due to the push to get ahead of the tariffs,” Williams told the Journal of Commerce. But the other shoe, in terms of international imports, is about to fall. “Our international [non-vessel-operating common carrier] group is reporting a noticeable decrease in our import container bookings from China, which is no doubt due to the tariffs,” said Williams. Booking cancellations could leave some ships departing China half-empty through May . That suggests any tariff-related bump in US LTL freight is likely to be short-lived. “We’re still dealing with a very soft market with no imminent sign of when it gets better,” said Mike Regan, chief relationship officer at TranzAct Technologies, a supply-chain consulting firm. The long-distance US LTL producer price index (PPI), a measure of all-inclusive LTL costs to shippers, dropped slightly in March after shooting up in January and February. The PPI’s fluctuations may reflect some pulled-forward freight, but also temporary gains in manufacturing output and higher replacement rates in some LTL contracts. Tariffs and timing Some LTL executives and analysts, although not all, are reporting a slight bump in LTL demand that correlates with a “pull forward” of freight from Asia, Europe, Mexico and Canada, all targets of US tariffs. Estes Express, a national LTL carrier, may have had some pull-forward business in January and February, President Webb Estes told the Journal of Commerce. “It’s hard to ever say [an increase in volume] is definitely because of this or because of that,” Estes said. Bad weather and higher manufacturing output may have also affected shipment counts at Estes, the largest privately-owned US LTL company. “I would say in the last four weeks or so [the market has been] maybe 2% to 2.5% softer than I anticipated, but a whole lot of things can factor into that,” he said. For one, US manufacturing in March slipped to its lowest rate of expansion so far this year, dropping to 50.2 from 52.7 in February, according to the S&P Global Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI). Even so, “there’s not been any monumental fall-off in volume,” said Estes. “It just hasn’t popped like we’re used to [in March and April].” “Our current LTL shipment numbers don’t show any increase, or decrease for that matter, based on pending tariffs,” said Chris Jamroz, CEO and executive chairman of long-distance LTL provider Roadrunner. “We have noticed some shippers pre-positioning freight and building inventory to stock in domestic warehouses, but these moves are mostly impacting airfreight, intermodal and truckload.” Shippers and analysts refer to a “steady state” market restrained by uncertainty over the Trump administration’s tariff plans and their impact on the global economy. More detail on LTL volume changes will become available as the large publicly-traded carriers release their first-quarter earnings over the next few weeks. “If we’re seeing anything, it’s steady [LTL] volumes,” said Aaron LaGanke, vice president of freight services at AFS Logistics, a third-party logistics provider, freight payment firm and producer of the quarterly TD Cowen / AFS Logistics Freight Index Forecast. LaGanke sees economic uncertainty holding back the market. “There are shippers who are pausing and asking, ‘What should we do?’” he said. “People want to make decisions based on data. When the information they get changes every day, it’s really hard to do that.” AFS Logistics expects its LTL freight index to decline 0.4 percentage point from the first quarter to 63.4 in the second quarter — still up 0.7% from a year ago. “If there are spikes in demand, they’re in specific geographic areas, not overall,” he said. Wall Street investment firm Stifel still expects flat to moderate growth in LTL volumes in the second quarter, with “choppy demand fundamentals.” “It’s difficult to ascertain whether demand has been pushed further out or has dried up,” Stifel said in a note to clients. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Trucking News

Surface

US LTL carriers see uneven uptick in demand amid trade uncertainty

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Carriers in the specialized cargo sector are designing contracts that would shift the cost of the US’ possible tax on Chinese tonnage to heavy-lift and project cargo shippers. </div>

Carriers in the specialized cargo sector are designing contracts that would shift the cost of the US’ possible tax on Chinese tonnage to heavy-lift and project cargo shippers.

<div class="phx-topic">Heavy-lift and project cargo shippers could end up paying 25% more in transportation costs if carriers and shipowners enact contract clauses meant to recoup possible US port fees associated with Chinese-owned, -operated and -built ships. As the United States Trade Representative (USTR) considers fees that would rattle the breakbulk market, vessel owners see opportunities to get ahead of the possible disruption by including clauses that address the fees. “Many carriers are working on finding solutions for the additional port dues for operators of Chinese-built ships,” Yorck Niclas Prehm, head of research with shipbroker Toepfer Transport, told the Journal of Commerce. “A significant number of these carriers have already incorporated clauses in their offers and booking notes that enable them to pass on the potential additional costs to the shippers.” One carrier source estimated that project cargo transportation costs could increase by 25% and expects the charges — if implemented — to be accepted with relatively little pushback as carriers appear united in their plans to pass down the cost. Still, carriers and shipowners stressed the potential implications of the fees, which are astronomically higher than other port fees normally addressed in contractual clauses. “Through the existing contractual framework, we are actually able to contract our way out of it,” said Thomas Damsgaard, head of Americas at BIMCO. BIMCO is one of the largest international shipping associations representing shipowners. And while contracts in some sectors of the shipping industry are less iron clad, the heavy-lift and project cargo market is small enough that contractual obligations are more durable. <h3>Port diversions possible </h3>Damsgaard said the structural context for port fees in general is already in most contracts and only needs to be revised to protect vessel owners from bearing the costs of the USTR proposal. Carriers and shipowners agreed, though, that the size of the proposed USTR fees adds another layer of complexity to passing costs down to the shipper. Some breakbulk carriers are also pursuing uniformity in addressing solutions to avoid bearing the cost that might be associated with Chinese vessels, such as inserting a clause in their contracts that allows for diversions to non-US ports. Such a clause might resemble a voyage charter war risk clause in that it allows carriers to cancel the contract before loading if they believe the threat of port fees is likely. And if cargo is already loaded when the threat is realized, then the cargo can be delivered to an alternate port. Ultimately, the contract clause would allow for any port costs to be passed on to the charterer. Still, the ongoing uncertainty remains the driving factor between settling contracts and planning projects. “At the moment the main word for me [with projects] is uncertainty,” Peter Molloy, senior associate of breakbulk and heavy-lift for maritime research company Drewry, told the Journal of Commerce. “What is coming out of the US regarding trade wars ... is not the immediate problem. It is the uncertainty it brings.” Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:Laura.Robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Heavy-lift and project cargo shippers could end up paying 25% more in transportation costs if carriers and shipowners enact contract clauses meant to recoup possible US port fees associated with Chinese-owned, -operated and -built ships. As the United States Trade Representative (USTR) considers fees that would rattle the breakbulk market, vessel owners see opportunities to get ahead of the possible disruption by including clauses that address the fees. “Many carriers are working on finding solutions for the additional port dues for operators of Chinese-built ships,” Yorck Niclas Prehm, head of research with shipbroker Toepfer Transport, told the Journal of Commerce. “A significant number of these carriers have already incorporated clauses in their offers and booking notes that enable them to pass on the potential additional costs to the shippers.” One carrier source estimated that project cargo transportation costs could increase by 25% and expects the charges — if implemented — to be accepted with relatively little pushback as carriers appear united in their plans to pass down the cost. Still, carriers and shipowners stressed the potential implications of the fees, which are astronomically higher than other port fees normally addressed in contractual clauses. “Through the existing contractual framework, we are actually able to contract our way out of it,” said Thomas Damsgaard, head of Americas at BIMCO. BIMCO is one of the largest international shipping associations representing shipowners. And while contracts in some sectors of the shipping industry are less iron clad, the heavy-lift and project cargo market is small enough that contractual obligations are more durable. Port diversions possible Damsgaard said the structural context for port fees in general is already in most contracts and only needs to be revised to protect vessel owners from bearing the costs of the USTR proposal. Carriers and shipowners agreed, though, that the size of the proposed USTR fees adds another layer of complexity to passing costs down to the shipper. Some breakbulk carriers are also pursuing uniformity in addressing solutions to avoid bearing the cost that might be associated with Chinese vessels, such as inserting a clause in their contracts that allows for diversions to non-US ports. Such a clause might resemble a voyage charter war risk clause in that it allows carriers to cancel the contract before loading if they believe the threat of port fees is likely. And if cargo is already loaded when the threat is realized, then the cargo can be delivered to an alternate port. Ultimately, the contract clause would allow for any port costs to be passed on to the charterer. Still, the ongoing uncertainty remains the driving factor between settling contracts and planning projects. “At the moment the main word for me [with projects] is uncertainty,” Peter Molloy, senior associate of breakbulk and heavy-lift for maritime research company Drewry, told the Journal of Commerce. “What is coming out of the US regarding trade wars ... is not the immediate problem. It is the uncertainty it brings.” Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com .

Breakbulk carriers

Heavy-haul transport

Project cargo

Breakbulk News

Project cargo carriers move to shield themselves from US port fee proposal

Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

Arm your team with the most trusted information portal for the international container shipping industry.

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Use code STSW20 at checkout to save 20% on the first year of any annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

Use code GUW795 at checkout and save $700 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Wide Box

UPGRADE AND SAVE

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

The world of LTL is slow to embrace change. Business anachronisms permeate current supply chain processes. These vestiges of the way things used to work define the LTL freight transportation procurement process of many modern shippers.David Knuth, logistics specialist at IEWC, a global supplier of cable and wire based in Wisconsin, is happy to have modernized the RFP process, automating the entire LTL bidding procedure with Bid$ense, SMC³’s automated truckload and LTL freight transportation sourcing solution. But when prompted, he can still recall what once was.In his previous job, a large part of his duties were consumed by creating an intermodal bid package for carriers. In a spreadsheet, Knuth detailed the company’s volumes lane by lane, taking care to delete any errant keystrokes or misleading data. He would then email out the information to each carrier, taking time to respond to detailed technical questions about the spreadsheet data. Finally, he had to compile all the results, create an algorithm that would compare the carriers on each lane, and award the business.“It was a huge undertaking. It took about four months to do,” Knuth said of the old process. “It was almost a full-time job for that part of the year, every year.”In his new job at IEWC, he sat down with Bid$ense on day one and was amazed at the capabilities. Knuth had never before used a bid tool. SMC³’s latest versions of Bid$ense automate the process even further, taking truckload and LTL RFPs entirely online. The tool draws on RFP best-practices protocols to streamline the bidding communication process, enabling bidding carriers to respond accurately and promptly to shipper requests. The solution also does all the distribution work automatically, electronically submitting shipper bid data to carriers based on their actual service capabilities and performance records. Carriers are alerted with timely prompts for RFP deliverables, so shippers aren’t waiting by the phone for responses.Another benefit of automating the process is the data-cleansing assistance. When Knuth sent spreadsheets to carriers, data errors might cloud the bidding process; he might have to resend data or simply accept a price that did not truly reflect the costs of doing business. Data cleansing is incredibly beneficial, he said.The spreadsheet technique also made bidding analysis an onerous task. Since Bid$ense automates and streamlines the entire RFP process, intensive examination is now simple. SMC³ knows that each bid has more than one best outcome. With uniform responses from each carrier, shippers can quickly rank results and create an unlimited quantity of what-if scenarios to make the optimal procurement decision.Jesse Burnett of Central Garden &amp; Pet experiences many of the same benefits. Founded in 1980, Central Garden &amp; Pet has spent the last three decades growing from a small garden supply company to a provider of a range of products from dog chews and bird seed to soil supplements and natural insecticides. For much of its life, the company shipped these disparate goods via LTL and truckload carriers to retailers throughout the country, relying on each business unit to negotiate directly with their freight transportation providers. This arrangement worked fairly well for a small company, but as Central Garden &amp; Pet expanded, leadership decided to consolidate decision making.Burnett helped centralize the transportation decision making in 2015 with SMC³’s Bid$ense. Before Bid$ense, every business unit operated independently as far as negotiating with carriers.“There were a lot of different things just floating around,” he said. “We didn’t have master agreements in place; no national pricing at all. The pricing from carriers was just all over the place, depending on where you were.”The transformations he saw with Bid$ense were immediate. Burnett has been using the tool about every other year since its implementation at the company. Central Garden and Pet’s $19.6 million 2019 LTL bid saved the company just more than 9 percent when compared to its historical average. For Burnett, though, bid automation extends far beyond savings.“We knew that we weren’t getting the best pricing offer from our carriers just because nothing was centralized,” he continued. “We knew that if we combined everything from all these business units and paired it with one corporate offering, then it would drive some cost benefit with it.”When the company initially decided to centralize bid procurement, executives researched a number of different methodologies and technologies. In the end, though, Burnett found that Bid$ense was both widespread and well known, and that his carrier partners already knew how to use the application. Burnett also highlighted the data-cleansing process as a major benefit, saying the rigorous process ensures that carriers always return the best price.“It definitely has helped drive savings,” he said. “Any time you go out there and you drive that competitiveness with the carriers and they know they’re in a bid environment, it seems to sharpen their pencils.”Transportation procurement is an integral part of the modern supply chain. With Bid$ense, shippers can develop a strategic implementation plan that saves them time and money, but also helps them create strong relationships with their carrier partners. These carriers appreciate the solution’s data-cleansing process; when carriers receive a complete shipment history and future volume forecast, they don’t have to guess on pricing. Carriers that receive more data from shippers get a complete picture of that shipper’s freight, allowing them to accurately plan instead of simply preparing for the worst-case scenario. Clean data presented through an automated system can lead to both bigger shipment savings and a lasting partnership between carrier and customer.Whether customers are looking to streamline over-the-road transportation bidding by automating the RFP process or create an entirely new, centralized sourcing process, Bid$ense has the analytical horsepower to get the job done.SMC³ 2020 Customer Case Study

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

If there’s one immutable truth in the world of logistics, it’s this: LTL is an inherently complex form of transportation. Tariffs, rates, DIM weights, transit times — it’s enough to confuse even seasoned logistics professionals. The solution to this knowledge gap has historically been on-the-job training or university supply chain education, but for a variety of reasons there is now a pressing need for third-party, remote LTL training that prepares logistics workers for transportation success. Global Scope Can Overlook Local Intricacies In the past, professionals looking to move into a supply chain career learned about the basics of supply chain from universities. However, many of these college supply chain programs are now global in scope, focusing on worldwide supply chain management instead of the intricacies of specialized domestic transportation. And even these programs, which used to be widespread, are becoming less common. LTL is not an industry of broad-brush strokes; supply chain professionals really need a pointillistic understanding of the logistics of LTL in order to excel in the industry. Accelerating Need for Dedicated LTL Education This lack of specified training put the onus on employers to prepare new hires with the LTL knowledge needed to do their jobs. Dedicated LTL study is a necessity, not a luxury. At the same time, changes in LTL and the broader supply chain world are accelerating. The reliance on e-commerce has ballooned since the start of the pandemic, and last-mile LTL shipments and related e-commerce strains on the supply chain won’t diminish once social distancing abates. That genie isn’t going back into the bottle. So supply chain employers need logistics workers that are fully versed in all aspects of the industry, ready to solve unique shipping and delivery problems based on their extensive supply chain knowledge But why care about LTL? It’s been reported that some shippers in today’s world are no longer concerned with what mode is used to ship their goods. A Multimodal Approach Ensures On-Time Delivery This mode agnosticism means supply chain stakeholders have to be well versed in all modes of transportation. As unforeseen weather events and other disruptions, such as protests, become more common, savvy logistics employees will need to be armed with familiarity of all modes, not just the most popular, to ensure that freight is delivered on time, without damage, and in the most financially expedient way possible. Offerings like SMC³’s LTL online education courses cover a wide range of topics from LTL basics and operations to more advanced concepts like pricing analytics and transportation law. The company also has plans to continually refresh content, adding new expert presenters and taking the feedback of students to make the courses even better as time goes on. Learn more about&nbsp;<a href="https://logisticstrainingcenter.com/smc3-courses/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">SMC³’s LTL Online Education program</a>&nbsp;and view the 2021 hybrid schedule, featuring live industry experts,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.smc3.com/onlinelearning2021/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">here.</a>

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

SUBSCRIBE TODAY: Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Offer Box

Subscribe Today

START A FREE TRIAL: Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE: Use code STSW20 at checkout to save 20% on first year of any subscription plan!


Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Offer Box

GET INTO A GROUP SUBSCRIPTION: Arm your team with unlimited Journal of Commerce content

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

UPGRADE AND SAVE: Use code GUW795 at checkout and save $700 on first year of a Gold subscription! 

Upgrade Subscription - Offer Box

A must-attend conference for shippers & logistics providers moving goods inland

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

A premium access index of savings using domestic intermodal vs. OTR 

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

An in-depth analysis of transport trends in the multipurpose and heavy-lift fleet segment

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

An extensive dashboard of charts organized by trade lane, mode, and topic

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Latest News

More News & Analysis

Uncertain trade environment especially fraught for US ag shippers

Scaled back USTR port tariff to hit Chinese carriers hardest

IMO deal on fuel intensity, pricing hailed as ‘major step forward’