Mar. 21, 1994 No. 4/ No. 6/ No. 6/1% 1% 0.5%

<div>Mar. 21, 1994No. 4/ No. 6/ No. 6/1% 1% 0.5%Buckley 22.00 19.50 27.85Coastal 21.75 17.75 __Hess f19.50 f18.10 __Buckley - 4 0.3%- 27.80, 4 0.5%- 28.30.f) Eff. Mar. 19.Prices do not include gross receipts tax.</div>...

Mar. 21, 1994 No. 4/ No. 6/ No. 6/ 1% 1% 0.5% Buckley 22.00 19.50 27.85 Coastal 21.75 17.75 __ Hess f19.50 f18.10 __ Buckley - 4 0.3%- 27.80, 4 0.5%- 28.30. f) Eff. Mar. 19. Prices do not include gross receipts tax.

NEW HAVEN RESIDUAL FUELS

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The carrier wants the tax imposed on CO2 emissions to raise the price of conventional bunkers high enough to force increased demand for low- and zero-emission fuels and narrow the yawning price gap between green and fossil energy.</div>

The carrier wants the tax imposed on CO2 emissions to raise the price of conventional bunkers high enough to force increased demand for low- and zero-emission fuels and narrow the yawning price gap between green and fossil energy.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">ROTTERDAM – Maersk is pushing hard for a global fuel levy on carbon emissions to be agreed by International Maritime Organization (IMO) member states during two crucial meetings to be held in London over the next three weeks. The carrier wants the tax imposed on CO2 emissions to raise the price of conventional bunkers high enough to force increased demand for low- and zero-emission fuels and narrow the yawning price gap between green and fossil fuels. “To avoid the pay-to-pollute scenario, the price should be around a minimum of $600 per ton,” Sanne Frías Henriksen, Maersk’s head of IMO and European Union public and regulatory affairs, told reporters in Rotterdam this week at the naming ceremony of the Adrian Maersk, the 12th of an 18-ship order of dual-fuel methanol-capable vessels. “The price level needs to be sufficiently high for the industry to actually buy the green fuels instead of just paying the penalties,” she added. Maersk wants the $600 per ton of CO2 equivalent to cover the marginal abatement cost for alternative fuels, which could be a combination of a levy and a “remedial unit” price. The remedial unit (RU) price is calculated to make the baseline fuel – liquefied natural gas or very low sulfur fuel oil – as expensive as a fuel mix that complies with the required fuel intensity target for a given year. A pricing mechanism and a fuel intensity standard are part of the basket of mid-term measures that will be thrashed out by member states next week at the IMO’s Intersessional Working Group on Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships (ISWG-GHG 19) next Monday and Tuesday. Recommendations from the ISWG will then go to the full meeting of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in London from April 7-11 that is tasked with achieving consensus on the mid-term measures and approving the legal text so whatever is decided can be rolled out in October. While there is huge political momentum to get a carbon levy across the finishing line at the IMO, there is an equally large discrepancy over the amount being proposed, with most countries indicating a price range of $18 to $150 per ton of CO2 emitted for the future levy. <h3>‘Just and equitable energy transition’ </h3>A report by the London-based UCL Energy Institute Shipping and Oceans Research Group released this week found that stable and predictable revenue generation, crucial for enabling “a just and equitable energy transition,” would only be possible in scenarios that have a levy component as well as a global fuel standard. But there is strong resistance to a fuel levy from some member states, including Brazil, China and South Africa, and tough negotiations are expected at the MEPC meeting. ”It’s not an easy task,” Henriksen acknowledged. “There are so many elements in this fight that must fall into place, so I think it’s quite natural that there will be discussions until the very end.” Maersk CCO Karsten Kildahl told reporters that without global regulation to narrow the price gap between current and future fuels, it will be difficult to encourage cargo owners to pay more for cleaner transport. “Our customers would like to buy green (fuels), but they face heavy competition, and it is difficult for them to pay twice as much to get a green fuel instead of a black fuel,” Kildahl said at the ship naming ceremony. ”What we hope is that the IMO, through MEPC 83, comes up with a proposal that takes from the black and gives to the green to even out the costs,” he added. But Kildahl acknowledged the difficulties in reaching consensus at the IMO with several proposals around the mid-term measures on the table. Should no agreement be reached on a pricing mechanism that could narrow the fossil fuel-green fuel gap and generate sufficient revenue to fund the energy transition, “then the green transition will be a long, long process,” he warned. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com. ">greg.knowler@spglobal.com.</a></div>

ROTTERDAM – Maersk is pushing hard for a global fuel levy on carbon emissions to be agreed by International Maritime Organization (IMO) member states during two crucial meetings to be held in London over the next three weeks. The carrier wants the tax imposed on CO2 emissions to raise the price of conventional bunkers high enough to force increased demand for low- and zero-emission fuels and narrow the yawning price gap between green and fossil fuels. “To avoid the pay-to-pollute scenario, the price should be around a minimum of $600 per ton,” Sanne Frías Henriksen, Maersk’s head of IMO and European Union public and regulatory affairs, told reporters in Rotterdam this week at the naming ceremony of the Adrian Maersk, the 12th of an 18-ship order of dual-fuel methanol-capable vessels. “The price level needs to be sufficiently high for the industry to actually buy the green fuels instead of just paying the penalties,” she added. Maersk wants the $600 per ton of CO2 equivalent to cover the marginal abatement cost for alternative fuels, which could be a combination of a levy and a “remedial unit” price. The remedial unit (RU) price is calculated to make the baseline fuel – liquefied natural gas or very low sulfur fuel oil – as expensive as a fuel mix that complies with the required fuel intensity target for a given year. A pricing mechanism and a fuel intensity standard are part of the basket of mid-term measures that will be thrashed out by member states next week at the IMO’s Intersessional Working Group on Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships (ISWG-GHG 19) next Monday and Tuesday. Recommendations from the ISWG will then go to the full meeting of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in London from April 7-11 that is tasked with achieving consensus on the mid-term measures and approving the legal text so whatever is decided can be rolled out in October. While there is huge political momentum to get a carbon levy across the finishing line at the IMO, there is an equally large discrepancy over the amount being proposed, with most countries indicating a price range of $18 to $150 per ton of CO2 emitted for the future levy. ‘Just and equitable energy transition’ A report by the London-based UCL Energy Institute Shipping and Oceans Research Group released this week found that stable and predictable revenue generation, crucial for enabling “a just and equitable energy transition,” would only be possible in scenarios that have a levy component as well as a global fuel standard. But there is strong resistance to a fuel levy from some member states, including Brazil, China and South Africa, and tough negotiations are expected at the MEPC meeting. ”It’s not an easy task,” Henriksen acknowledged. “There are so many elements in this fight that must fall into place, so I think it’s quite natural that there will be discussions until the very end.” Maersk CCO Karsten Kildahl told reporters that without global regulation to narrow the price gap between current and future fuels, it will be difficult to encourage cargo owners to pay more for cleaner transport. “Our customers would like to buy green (fuels), but they face heavy competition, and it is difficult for them to pay twice as much to get a green fuel instead of a black fuel,” Kildahl said at the ship naming ceremony. ”What we hope is that the IMO, through MEPC 83, comes up with a proposal that takes from the black and gives to the green to even out the costs,” he added. But Kildahl acknowledged the difficulties in reaching consensus at the IMO with several proposals around the mid-term measures on the table. Should no agreement be reached on a pricing mechanism that could narrow the fossil fuel-green fuel gap and generate sufficient revenue to fund the energy transition, “then the green transition will be a long, long process,” he warned. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com.

Container Shipping News

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Container lines

Maritime

High fuel levy would avoid ‘pay-to-pollute' scenario: Maersk

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Shippers, carriers and forwarders say uncertainty around consumer demand, tariffs and geopolitical disruptions has produced a wider range of service contract rates this year.</div>

Shippers, carriers and forwarders say uncertainty around consumer demand, tariffs and geopolitical disruptions has produced a wider range of service contract rates this year.

<div class="phx-topic">The largest US retailers are signing their 2025–26 service contracts in the eastbound trans-Pacific at rates that are about 15% to 20% higher than they signed for last year, with midsize importers likely to finalize deals in the coming few weeks at slightly higher rates. Three carriers, seven non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs) and two industry consultants told the Journal of Commerce those major retailers have signed service contracts over the past week. The rates in those contracts, which essentially set the floor for negotiations with midsize and smaller shippers, range from $1,600 to $1,800 per FEU from Asia to the US West Coast, and about $1,000 per FEU higher than that to the East Coast. Most trans-Pacific service contracts will run from May 1 through April 30, 2026. Last year, the largest big box retailers signed service contracts in the range of <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/top-us-retailers-set-asia-service-contract-floor-significantly-higher-than-2023-24-5225383">$1,400 to $1,450 per FEU to the West Coast</a> and about $1,000 per FEU higher to the East Coast. However, within weeks of those agreements being signed, spot rates <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/container-market-turn-could-keep-capacity-tight-until-october-5214010">popped to levels not seen since the COVID-19 pandemic</a> due to surging demand and frontloading of imports prior to the expiration of the dockworker contract on the East and Gulf coasts. Several midsize importers — those shipping 30,000 to 40,000 containers per year — are in their second round of negotiations and are expected to sign for rates that are about $100 to $150 per FEU higher than what the largest retailers will pay. “Most of those contracts are done or nearly done,” a carrier executive who asked not to be identified told the Journal of Commerce Wednesday. He expects midsize retailers and other importers to secure contract rates in the range of $1,700 to $1,900 per FEU, up from <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/importers-try-to-push-cargo-to-contract-rates-as-trans-pac-spot-market-surges-5244311">$1,500 to $1,700 per FEU last year</a>. NVOs said their negotiations are likewise on schedule, with the first round nearing completion. They expect to wrap up their contracts later in April. “They’re coming down from the $2,500 initial offer,” said Chistian Sur, executive vice president of ocean freight at Unique Logistics International. “We haven’t gotten below $2,000 yet.” <h3>A wider range of rates </h3>Shippers and carriers say that due to uncertainties in the global trade environment, including the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/escalating-tariffs-will-cause-profound-trade-pattern-changes-cosco-5967662">Trump administration’s tariffs</a>, the possibility of a <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ustrs-china-tonnage-tax-would-squeeze-smaller-trades-stakeholders-5967638">tax on US port calls by Chinese-operated and -built ships</a>, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/houthi-militants-threaten-to-restart-attacks-on-red-sea-shipping-5959250">continued disruptions in the Red Sea</a> and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/tpm25-carriers-shippers-face-year-of-turmoil-and-uncertainty-5957721">questions over consumer demand</a> in the second half of the year, the range of service contract rates is greater this year than in past years. “The market is really unsettled,” said Benton Kauffman, head of trans-Pacific air and sea logistics at the forwarder DSV Transport Logistics. “Rates are all over the place,” said James Caradonna, executive vice president at forwarder Spedag Americas. Some large importers who held out too long in the 2024–25 contract negotiations and then could not secure sufficient space when US imports from Asia surged by double-digit percentages agreed to rates on the higher end of the spectrum this time around, he noted. The carrier executive said he believes most large customers are trying to spread out their minimum quantity commitments (MQCs) among multiple carriers, which is likely one of the main reasons behind the wider range of pricing this year. However, some shippers have resisted signing at higher rates this year because they believe the market will continue to soften in the second half, Caradonna said. Average spot rates from Asia to the US West Coast fell to $1,600 per FEU this week, down 69.5% from the first week of January and 48.7% year over year, according to Platts, sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="4dfb665f-cef9-423e-ba98-aecdd9291d5c"></dynamic-object></div>Other midsize importers are hesitant to make their MQCs right now due to demand uncertainty and confidence that the vessel space will be there when they need it, said Kurt McEloy, executive vice president at the forwarder Kerry Apex. “It’s hard for them to nail down their MQCs, so some midsize importers will wait until well into April,” McElroy said. Stephen Nothdurft, vice president of North American sales at forwarder MOL Consolidation Service, said his clients likewise are not concerned about capacity constraints. “Space is widely available,” he said. “There are some blanks, but it’s hard to tell what is [due to] capacity management and what is downstream from service changes early this year.” A midsize importer of home furnishings who asked not to be identified said he is operating under a “normal” timeline of wrapping up the first round of negotiations in March and signing the contract in April. Several NVOs said carriers are also bringing different strategies to contract negotiations this year because of <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/carrier-alliance-shifting-causes-february-dip-in-trans-pacific-vessel-capacity-5937603">changes in the carrier alliances</a> that took effect in February, with some pricing more aggressively in an effort to build market share. The threat by the US Trade Representative (USTR) to levy charges as high as $1.5 million per port call by vessels built in China has some carriers that rely heavily on Chinese-built vessels concerned that customers will reduce their MQCs with them this year, so those lines are also quoting lower prices in order to retain business, NVOs said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>. Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:laura.robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The largest US retailers are signing their 2025–26 service contracts in the eastbound trans-Pacific at rates that are about 15% to 20% higher than they signed for last year, with midsize importers likely to finalize deals in the coming few weeks at slightly higher rates. Three carriers, seven non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs) and two industry consultants told the Journal of Commerce those major retailers have signed service contracts over the past week. The rates in those contracts, which essentially set the floor for negotiations with midsize and smaller shippers, range from $1,600 to $1,800 per FEU from Asia to the US West Coast, and about $1,000 per FEU higher than that to the East Coast. Most trans-Pacific service contracts will run from May 1 through April 30, 2026. Last year, the largest big box retailers signed service contracts in the range of $1,400 to $1,450 per FEU to the West Coast and about $1,000 per FEU higher to the East Coast. However, within weeks of those agreements being signed, spot rates popped to levels not seen since the COVID-19 pandemic due to surging demand and frontloading of imports prior to the expiration of the dockworker contract on the East and Gulf coasts. Several midsize importers — those shipping 30,000 to 40,000 containers per year — are in their second round of negotiations and are expected to sign for rates that are about $100 to $150 per FEU higher than what the largest retailers will pay. “Most of those contracts are done or nearly done,” a carrier executive who asked not to be identified told the Journal of Commerce Wednesday. He expects midsize retailers and other importers to secure contract rates in the range of $1,700 to $1,900 per FEU, up from $1,500 to $1,700 per FEU last year . NVOs said their negotiations are likewise on schedule, with the first round nearing completion. They expect to wrap up their contracts later in April. “They’re coming down from the $2,500 initial offer,” said Chistian Sur, executive vice president of ocean freight at Unique Logistics International. “We haven’t gotten below $2,000 yet.” A wider range of rates Shippers and carriers say that due to uncertainties in the global trade environment, including the Trump administration’s tariffs , the possibility of a tax on US port calls by Chinese-operated and -built ships , continued disruptions in the Red Sea and questions over consumer demand in the second half of the year, the range of service contract rates is greater this year than in past years. “The market is really unsettled,” said Benton Kauffman, head of trans-Pacific air and sea logistics at the forwarder DSV Transport Logistics. “Rates are all over the place,” said James Caradonna, executive vice president at forwarder Spedag Americas. Some large importers who held out too long in the 2024–25 contract negotiations and then could not secure sufficient space when US imports from Asia surged by double-digit percentages agreed to rates on the higher end of the spectrum this time around, he noted. The carrier executive said he believes most large customers are trying to spread out their minimum quantity commitments (MQCs) among multiple carriers, which is likely one of the main reasons behind the wider range of pricing this year. However, some shippers have resisted signing at higher rates this year because they believe the market will continue to soften in the second half, Caradonna said. Average spot rates from Asia to the US West Coast fell to $1,600 per FEU this week, down 69.5% from the first week of January and 48.7% year over year, according to Platts, sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Other midsize importers are hesitant to make their MQCs right now due to demand uncertainty and confidence that the vessel space will be there when they need it, said Kurt McEloy, executive vice president at the forwarder Kerry Apex. “It’s hard for them to nail down their MQCs, so some midsize importers will wait until well into April,” McElroy said. Stephen Nothdurft, vice president of North American sales at forwarder MOL Consolidation Service, said his clients likewise are not concerned about capacity constraints. “Space is widely available,” he said. “There are some blanks, but it’s hard to tell what is [due to] capacity management and what is downstream from service changes early this year.” A midsize importer of home furnishings who asked not to be identified said he is operating under a “normal” timeline of wrapping up the first round of negotiations in March and signing the contract in April. Several NVOs said carriers are also bringing different strategies to contract negotiations this year because of changes in the carrier alliances that took effect in February, with some pricing more aggressively in an effort to build market share. The threat by the US Trade Representative (USTR) to levy charges as high as $1.5 million per port call by vessels built in China has some carriers that rely heavily on Chinese-built vessels concerned that customers will reduce their MQCs with them this year, so those lines are also quoting lower prices in order to retain business, NVOs said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com . Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com .

Forwarding

Trans-Pacific

Largest US importers finalizing contracts in ‘unsettled’ trans-Pacific

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Excess capacity and waning US import demand caused in part by tariff uncertainty could put further downward pressure on drayage pricing in the second quarter.</div>

Excess capacity and waning US import demand caused in part by tariff uncertainty could put further downward pressure on drayage pricing in the second quarter.

<div class="phx-topic">Nationwide US drayage capacity appears to be slowly shrinking from a 2022 high, but with some of those losses attributed to the migration of drivers to larger carriers, excess drayage capacity will persist, putting more pressure on already rock-bottom rates. Overall, drayage capacity “has been pretty stable over the last year,” said Jason Hilsenbeck, president of LoadMatch.com and Drayage.com, a drayage load-matching service and an online directory of drayage carriers, respectively. “The thing to pay attention to is the active driver count,” which has been more stable than the number of carriers, declining over the past two years but at a slower pace, Hilsenbeck told the Journal of Commerce. That has helped maintain excess capacity, even during last year’s surge in US imports. The number of drivers in the Intermodal Association of North America’s (IANA’s) intermodal driver database dropped only 0.4% in January from the same month in the prior year, to about 489,000 drivers, according to a report Hilsenbeck released last week. The driver number is down about 8% over two years. The number of Uniform Intermodal Interchange Agreement (UIIA) carriers is still 61% higher than in late 2019, while the number of drivers is only up about 3.4% in the same period, according to data from the report. The number of companies with a UIIA dropped 3% year over year to 12,960 in January and was down nearly 14% from January 2023. The UIIA is a contract governing the exchange of intermodal equipment and is administered by IANA. According to the association, the UIIA covers 95% of all North American intermodal equipment exchanges. <h3>Internal migration </h3>The disparity in growth between UIIA carriers and intermodal database drivers suggests that some owner-operators or drivers at small drayage carriers are shifting to larger operators, a trend also seen in the over-the-road truckload sector when rates drop. “Drivers in general are the commodity in trucking,” said Paul Brashier, vice president of global supply chain for ITS Logistics, which provides drayage services among its offerings. “They will migrate to the larger carriers when the market is where it is now because the larger carriers can acquire business.” Without stronger demand, “the small carriers will struggle to keep their doors open and have a more difficult time acquiring or holding on to business,” Brashier said. And with US import volumes expected to slow amid tariff uncertainty and waning consumer confidence, drayage carriers face a tough year ahead. “Unless there is something that significantly affects driver turn time, I don’t see anything lifting rates drastically,” said Brashier. “The biggest challenge is going to be rate per load and profitability.” The drayage market is oversupplied, but it’s headed toward a better balance, Brian Kempisty, founder of drayage brokerage Port X Logistics, told the Journal of Commerce. “I’ve seen a shift from ‘just find a way to move it’ and ‘low cost’ to making drayage part of a broad supply chain solution,” Kempisty said. “I think we are hitting a better equilibrium of cost versus service.” Forwarder Kuehne + Nagel’s acquisition of a majority stake in nationwide drayage operator IMC Logistics is an example of how a logistics provider might integrate port-side and intermodal drayage into its global services and solutions. In a depressed market, “it’s hard for the smaller guys to find consistent freight,” Kempisty said. That could encourage some drivers to leave for other trucking jobs, from long-distance less-than-truckload and truckload to short-haul general trucking and last-mile delivery. But demand is soft in those sectors, too. “Second-quarter demand will likely be lower in the drayage space,” said Kempisty. “That may squeeze some companies out over the next several months.” Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Nationwide US drayage capacity appears to be slowly shrinking from a 2022 high, but with some of those losses attributed to the migration of drivers to larger carriers, excess drayage capacity will persist, putting more pressure on already rock-bottom rates. Overall, drayage capacity “has been pretty stable over the last year,” said Jason Hilsenbeck, president of LoadMatch.com and Drayage.com, a drayage load-matching service and an online directory of drayage carriers, respectively. “The thing to pay attention to is the active driver count,” which has been more stable than the number of carriers, declining over the past two years but at a slower pace, Hilsenbeck told the Journal of Commerce. That has helped maintain excess capacity, even during last year’s surge in US imports. The number of drivers in the Intermodal Association of North America’s (IANA’s) intermodal driver database dropped only 0.4% in January from the same month in the prior year, to about 489,000 drivers, according to a report Hilsenbeck released last week. The driver number is down about 8% over two years. The number of Uniform Intermodal Interchange Agreement (UIIA) carriers is still 61% higher than in late 2019, while the number of drivers is only up about 3.4% in the same period, according to data from the report. The number of companies with a UIIA dropped 3% year over year to 12,960 in January and was down nearly 14% from January 2023. The UIIA is a contract governing the exchange of intermodal equipment and is administered by IANA. According to the association, the UIIA covers 95% of all North American intermodal equipment exchanges. Internal migration The disparity in growth between UIIA carriers and intermodal database drivers suggests that some owner-operators or drivers at small drayage carriers are shifting to larger operators, a trend also seen in the over-the-road truckload sector when rates drop. “Drivers in general are the commodity in trucking,” said Paul Brashier, vice president of global supply chain for ITS Logistics, which provides drayage services among its offerings. “They will migrate to the larger carriers when the market is where it is now because the larger carriers can acquire business.” Without stronger demand, “the small carriers will struggle to keep their doors open and have a more difficult time acquiring or holding on to business,” Brashier said. And with US import volumes expected to slow amid tariff uncertainty and waning consumer confidence, drayage carriers face a tough year ahead. “Unless there is something that significantly affects driver turn time, I don’t see anything lifting rates drastically,” said Brashier. “The biggest challenge is going to be rate per load and profitability.” The drayage market is oversupplied, but it’s headed toward a better balance, Brian Kempisty, founder of drayage brokerage Port X Logistics, told the Journal of Commerce. “I’ve seen a shift from ‘just find a way to move it’ and ‘low cost’ to making drayage part of a broad supply chain solution,” Kempisty said. “I think we are hitting a better equilibrium of cost versus service.” Forwarder Kuehne + Nagel’s acquisition of a majority stake in nationwide drayage operator IMC Logistics is an example of how a logistics provider might integrate port-side and intermodal drayage into its global services and solutions. In a depressed market, “it’s hard for the smaller guys to find consistent freight,” Kempisty said. That could encourage some drivers to leave for other trucking jobs, from long-distance less-than-truckload and truckload to short-haul general trucking and last-mile delivery. But demand is soft in those sectors, too. “Second-quarter demand will likely be lower in the drayage space,” said Kempisty. “That may squeeze some companies out over the next several months.” Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Trucking News

Drayage

Surface

Shrinking US drayage capacity to continue outstripping demand

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The port authority on Wednesday completed an expansion of Inland Port Greer ahead of the opening of the near-dock Navy Base Intermodal Facility (NBIF) at the Port of Charleston later this year. </div>

The port authority on Wednesday completed an expansion of Inland Port Greer ahead of the opening of the near-dock Navy Base Intermodal Facility (NBIF) at the Port of Charleston later this year.

<div class="phx-topic">The completion of a $55 million expansion at South Carolina Ports’ (SC Ports’) Inland Port Greer will increase the capacity and efficiency of an intermodal rail facility that has seen “tremendous growth” in volumes, as SC Ports CEO Barbara Melvin put it, since opening in 2014. Finalized Wednesday, the project — which included adding 9,000 feet of rail to serve longer trains and increasing chassis and container storage yard capacity by 50% — boosted the terminal’s annual handling capacity to 300,000 rail lifts. Of the $55 million total investment, $13.75 million was funded by a US Department of Transportation grant. According to SC Ports, cargo volumes through Inland Port Greer grew an average of 16% per year from 2014 through 2024. The terminal performed 187,000 rail lifts during the port authority’s fiscal year 2024, which ended June 30, 2025, and is on track for 200,000 lifts in fiscal year 2025, an SC Ports spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. Norfolk Southern Railway serves Inland Port Greer, moving an average of 7,500 to 8,500 containers per month to and from the terminal, according to a Journal of Commerce analysis of data from the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA). In addition to anchor tenant BMW, Greer is also a popular location for exporters in Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee to drop off loads destined for the Port of Charleston. “We have seen tremendous growth at Inland Port Greer since operations began, and this expansion and investment will allow us to continue providing excellent service as our customers grow,” Melvin said in a statement. “This critical project not only supports the needs of our existing customers but also positions the region to attract more cargo and new business,” she added. The completion of the expansion comes ahead of the opening of the Navy Base Intermodal Facility (NBIF), which will have an annual capacity of 1 million rail lifts when it begins operation later this year. The near-dock terminal is being built on the 118-acre site on the former Charleston Naval Complex at the Port of Charleston and will connect directly to the Hugh K. Leatherman Terminal via a private access road. Imports landing at the port’s Wando Welch Terminal will be barged over to the NBIF and hauled by rail to Greer and SC Ports’ other inland rail terminal in Dillon, South Carolina, which is served by CSX Transportation. Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:Laura.Robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The completion of a $55 million expansion at South Carolina Ports’ (SC Ports’) Inland Port Greer will increase the capacity and efficiency of an intermodal rail facility that has seen “tremendous growth” in volumes, as SC Ports CEO Barbara Melvin put it, since opening in 2014. Finalized Wednesday, the project — which included adding 9,000 feet of rail to serve longer trains and increasing chassis and container storage yard capacity by 50% — boosted the terminal’s annual handling capacity to 300,000 rail lifts. Of the $55 million total investment, $13.75 million was funded by a US Department of Transportation grant. According to SC Ports, cargo volumes through Inland Port Greer grew an average of 16% per year from 2014 through 2024. The terminal performed 187,000 rail lifts during the port authority’s fiscal year 2024, which ended June 30, 2025, and is on track for 200,000 lifts in fiscal year 2025, an SC Ports spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. Norfolk Southern Railway serves Inland Port Greer, moving an average of 7,500 to 8,500 containers per month to and from the terminal, according to a Journal of Commerce analysis of data from the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA). In addition to anchor tenant BMW, Greer is also a popular location for exporters in Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee to drop off loads destined for the Port of Charleston. “We have seen tremendous growth at Inland Port Greer since operations began, and this expansion and investment will allow us to continue providing excellent service as our customers grow,” Melvin said in a statement. “This critical project not only supports the needs of our existing customers but also positions the region to attract more cargo and new business,” she added. The completion of the expansion comes ahead of the opening of the Navy Base Intermodal Facility (NBIF), which will have an annual capacity of 1 million rail lifts when it begins operation later this year. The near-dock terminal is being built on the 118-acre site on the former Charleston Naval Complex at the Port of Charleston and will connect directly to the Hugh K. Leatherman Terminal via a private access road. Imports landing at the port’s Wando Welch Terminal will be barged over to the NBIF and hauled by rail to Greer and SC Ports’ other inland rail terminal in Dillon, South Carolina, which is served by CSX Transportation. Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com .

Supply chain

Port News

North American ports

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

Rail News

SC Ports expanding intermodal capabilities to handle growing demand

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Ongoing supply chain disruption and a significant increase in trading of container freight futures among speculative investors could accelerate the adoption of financial hedging tools among shippers and other physical industry players.</div>

Ongoing supply chain disruption and a significant increase in trading of container freight futures among speculative investors could accelerate the adoption of financial hedging tools among shippers and other physical industry players.

<div class="phx-topic">After two decades of minimal progress, the environment for the adoption of container freight futures is increasingly ripe as ongoing supply chain disruption has heightened demand for risk management tools among beneficial cargo owners (BCOs). It is too soon to say, but the landscape has shifted such that BCOs and other industry players may give futures, financial instruments aimed at mitigating the risk of rate volatility, a second look. The successful introduction in 2023 of a futures market in Shanghai — the value of which is already multiple times the value of the underlying Asia-Europe freight rate — has added momentum to that shift. “If you look at the level of liquidity that [the Shanghai-traded] futures have been able to achieve within the last 18 months, it’s well in excess of $1.5 billion daily,” Hua Joo Tan, analyst at Linerlytica, explained in a March 24 seminar on container freight futures during Singapore Maritime Week. “To put this in perspective, that’s almost 20 times the size of the physical market of physical containers moving from Asia to North Europe.” The Shanghai futures market has reached that level of liquidity, “with almost zero industry participation at this point,” Tan added. Speculative investors have been far more active in trading than BCOs and other industry players, but the industry itself is headed in that direction. A growing mindset of risk mitigation among BCOs in the face of continuing disruptions has led to increased adoption of index-linked contracts, for example, which mitigate price as a point of stress in contracts. At the Journal of Commerce’s TPM25 conference in early March, the first panel on this topic in several years drew a packed room. A logical next step would be for BCOs to use futures or other financial instruments to hedge against adverse price movements within their index-linked contracts. That’s a big leap, considering that chief financial officers view the risk of rapid increases in container freight rates as an issue to be managed alongside more traditional risks such as foreign currency, interest rates, commodity prices or inflation. That would be a sea change by itself. Container freight futures emerged around the time of the 2008 global financial crisis, the theory being that container freight is a commodity market no different from pork bellies or soybeans. Several investment banks, including Morgan Stanley, thought they saw an opportunity and jumped on board. But container freight futures trading never took off, in large part because the commodity market was an imperfect analogy; although container freight bears some resemblance to a commodity market, with supply and demand driving pricing, the fact that BCOs need shipping irrespective of costs — as the COVID-19 pandemic proved, when prices soared but cargo continued to move — undermined the logic. Fast forward to 2023, container freight futures trading entered the Shanghai International Energy Exchange, part of Shanghai Futures Exchange (SHFE), based on a tradable, auditable version of the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index, called the SCFI-S. The SCFI-S is based on so-called shipped-on-board pricing, rather than rates at the time of booking. Other container freight derivative markets are in development in Europe and North America. In November, the New York Shipping Exchange (NYSHEX) <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/nyshex-says-will-launch-ocean-freight-rate-indexes-next-year-5820643">announced the creation of new shipping rate indexes</a>, developed in conjunction with the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), that will launch this year. “We expect leading banks like Goldman Sachs and Citi will be able to offer their corporate clients a range of container freight hedging options, such as swaps, options and collars,” NYSHEX CEO Gordon Downes told the Journal of Commerce. “We also expect that a futures market will develop over time to make the cost and process of hedging much more efficient.” “As we see the container shipping industry moving toward index-linked contracts, there is a growing need for ways to hedge the volatility of container spot rates,” Zach Fields, an investor on Goldman Sachs Alternatives’ growth equity team, said in a statement announcing the launch of the NYSHEX indexes. Still, futures have yet to overcome the hurdle they have faced for years: becoming a market for “physical” players, as opposed to just traders. A few China-based physical players dabble in the market, but international forwarders, carriers and BCOs so far have remained on the sidelines. “There’s still a lot of resistance and inertia against the adoption of these freight futures,” Tan said. But that could change, if only because BCOs have a limited ability to mitigate supply chain disruption, which is often unpredictable, and are looking for creative ways to address the challenge. One way has always been to build better relationships with ocean carriers to maximize the odds of cargo being loaded in tight markets through index-linked contracts. These floating contract rates are gaining traction because they ensure a shipper’s cargo won’t be priced below the market and thus become vulnerable to getting rolled in favor of higher-paying freight. But index-linked contracts bring another risk, unanticipated cost increases, which complicate budgeting and can impact financial results and investor relations. Given the rising recognition of supply chain risk, it is time for chief financial officers to give container freight futures a second look. Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

After two decades of minimal progress, the environment for the adoption of container freight futures is increasingly ripe as ongoing supply chain disruption has heightened demand for risk management tools among beneficial cargo owners (BCOs). It is too soon to say, but the landscape has shifted such that BCOs and other industry players may give futures, financial instruments aimed at mitigating the risk of rate volatility, a second look. The successful introduction in 2023 of a futures market in Shanghai — the value of which is already multiple times the value of the underlying Asia-Europe freight rate — has added momentum to that shift. “If you look at the level of liquidity that [the Shanghai-traded] futures have been able to achieve within the last 18 months, it’s well in excess of $1.5 billion daily,” Hua Joo Tan, analyst at Linerlytica, explained in a March 24 seminar on container freight futures during Singapore Maritime Week. “To put this in perspective, that’s almost 20 times the size of the physical market of physical containers moving from Asia to North Europe.” The Shanghai futures market has reached that level of liquidity, “with almost zero industry participation at this point,” Tan added. Speculative investors have been far more active in trading than BCOs and other industry players, but the industry itself is headed in that direction. A growing mindset of risk mitigation among BCOs in the face of continuing disruptions has led to increased adoption of index-linked contracts, for example, which mitigate price as a point of stress in contracts. At the Journal of Commerce’s TPM25 conference in early March, the first panel on this topic in several years drew a packed room. A logical next step would be for BCOs to use futures or other financial instruments to hedge against adverse price movements within their index-linked contracts. That’s a big leap, considering that chief financial officers view the risk of rapid increases in container freight rates as an issue to be managed alongside more traditional risks such as foreign currency, interest rates, commodity prices or inflation. That would be a sea change by itself. Container freight futures emerged around the time of the 2008 global financial crisis, the theory being that container freight is a commodity market no different from pork bellies or soybeans. Several investment banks, including Morgan Stanley, thought they saw an opportunity and jumped on board. But container freight futures trading never took off, in large part because the commodity market was an imperfect analogy; although container freight bears some resemblance to a commodity market, with supply and demand driving pricing, the fact that BCOs need shipping irrespective of costs — as the COVID-19 pandemic proved, when prices soared but cargo continued to move — undermined the logic. Fast forward to 2023, container freight futures trading entered the Shanghai International Energy Exchange, part of Shanghai Futures Exchange (SHFE), based on a tradable, auditable version of the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index, called the SCFI-S. The SCFI-S is based on so-called shipped-on-board pricing, rather than rates at the time of booking. Other container freight derivative markets are in development in Europe and North America. In November, the New York Shipping Exchange (NYSHEX) announced the creation of new shipping rate indexes , developed in conjunction with the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), that will launch this year. “We expect leading banks like Goldman Sachs and Citi will be able to offer their corporate clients a range of container freight hedging options, such as swaps, options and collars,” NYSHEX CEO Gordon Downes told the Journal of Commerce. “We also expect that a futures market will develop over time to make the cost and process of hedging much more efficient.” “As we see the container shipping industry moving toward index-linked contracts, there is a growing need for ways to hedge the volatility of container spot rates,” Zach Fields, an investor on Goldman Sachs Alternatives’ growth equity team, said in a statement announcing the launch of the NYSHEX indexes. Still, futures have yet to overcome the hurdle they have faced for years: becoming a market for “physical” players, as opposed to just traders. A few China-based physical players dabble in the market, but international forwarders, carriers and BCOs so far have remained on the sidelines. “There’s still a lot of resistance and inertia against the adoption of these freight futures,” Tan said. But that could change, if only because BCOs have a limited ability to mitigate supply chain disruption, which is often unpredictable, and are looking for creative ways to address the challenge. One way has always been to build better relationships with ocean carriers to maximize the odds of cargo being loaded in tight markets through index-linked contracts. These floating contract rates are gaining traction because they ensure a shipper’s cargo won’t be priced below the market and thus become vulnerable to getting rolled in favor of higher-paying freight. But index-linked contracts bring another risk, unanticipated cost increases, which complicate budgeting and can impact financial results and investor relations. Given the rising recognition of supply chain risk, it is time for chief financial officers to give container freight futures a second look. Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

Logistics Technology News

Freight futures get second look amid increased risk, trading volumes

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

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 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

High fuel levy would avoid ‘pay-to-pollute' scenario: Maersk

Largest US importers finalizing contracts in ‘unsettled’ trans-Pacific

Shrinking US drayage capacity to continue outstripping demand