<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">US exporters face unexpected costs and delays due to changes in dates for dropping off containers, which the FMC hopes to address with more consistent data. </div>

US exporters face unexpected costs and delays due to changes in dates for dropping off containers, which the FMC hopes to address with more consistent data.

3688162_FI.png

<div>US exporters have told the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) the lack of consistent information about container drop-off dates and vessel schedules is leading to higher costs and delays. While a single source for such information would help, liner operators and ports say the many variables at play in ocean shipping make that goal elusive. The FMC sought the input from shippers, as well as others in the maritime supply chain, for the Maritime Transportation Data Initiative (MTDI), <a>the effort started by Commissioner Carl Bentzel in November 2021</a> to provide standardized container tracking and other cargo data across US ports. After...

US exporters have told the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) the lack of consistent information about container drop-off dates and vessel schedules is leading to higher costs and delays. While a single source for such information would help, liner operators and ports say the many variables at play in ocean shipping make that goal elusive. The FMC sought the input from shippers, as well as others in the maritime supply chain, for the Maritime Transportation Data Initiative (MTDI), the effort started by Commissioner Carl Bentzel in November 2021 to provide standardized container tracking and other cargo data across US ports. After receiving initial industry feedback on what the MTDI should encompass last year, the FMC said in April it was seeking additional input on maritime data accuracy and “where communication is mostly likely to break down or information is most likely to be conveyed inaccurately.” In comments published Monday in the Federal Register, shippers widely cited conflicting and inaccurate information about when containers can be moved and when ships arrive. Exporters especially face this problem with the early return date (ERD) for a container to be brought to a port for loading on a ship, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) told the FMC. The ACC said the ERD an ocean carrier provides a shipper for bringing an export load “does not match the ERD provided by the marine terminal, or the ERD does not match the appointment system.” While vessel schedule changes would indicate a potential ERD shift, the ACC said that “such updates are not consistently provided.” ERD shifts cause “dry runs and additional storage in trucker yards,” the ACC said. The group said that shippers need to do “a lot of manual cross-referencing” of both marine terminal websites and ocean carrier updates for ERD status. The American Cotton Shippers Association told the FMC its members must rely on their truckers and forwarders for coordinating exports due to a “lack of uniform behavior, process, data and timing” on ERD information and vessel schedules. Vessel delays, terminal space affect ERDs Both the chemical and cotton shippers agreed that fixed ERDs — such as the seven-day export receiving window the Port of Virginia implemented — offer exporters a more consistent approach to scheduling container drop-off times. They also urged that ocean carriers make no last-minute changes to ERDs. As for how many ships are arriving off-schedule — thus affecting the ERD — Hapag-Lloyd told the FMC that 20% to 30% of its ships face scheduled changes within the last week prior to arrival. The carrier said that while it communicates schedule changes directly to its customers, it directs shippers to consult with the marine terminals about ERDs because local issues such as port congestion can impact export receiving. “The [marine terminal] will frequently change the ERD depending on operational changes,” Hapag-Lloyd told the FMC. “The most common reason is due to port congestion that results in vessel delays.” The Port of NY/NJ Sustainable Services Agreement, which represents New York-New Jersey terminal operators, said ERD changes are a function of both vessel delays and terminal space. The group said that NY-NJ marine terminals see fewer schedule changes due to being a first port of call for vessel services, but “berth congestion, tidal restrictions, and operational delays play a factor when a vessel is beyond its first port of call.” The Port of Virginia, which is a second call after NY-NJ for some container services, told the FMC it is currently experiencing up to 90% of vessels changing their scheduled arrival because of “performance at previous ports of call on the US East Coast.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Container Shipping News

Container lines

North American ports

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Shippers urge FMC to address shifting dates for dropping off exports

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A resurgence of nuclear projects in the US should provide a steady stream of project cargo work through the end of the decade. </div>

A resurgence of nuclear projects in the US should provide a steady stream of project cargo work through the end of the decade.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">After decades of relatively dormant development, the nuclear industry is in comeback mode, as the US looks to develop large-scale, low-carbon energy sources to feed power-hungry technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) and the energy-intensive production of smartphone microchips. That development could significantly power up breakbulk and project cargo activity over the next decade. To support the varying stages of the nuclear fuel cycle, policy changes and investments are lining up for the US to execute an extensive buildout or new and redeveloped power plants, reactors, mines and enrichment facilities. The second Trump administration has shifted national energy policy to prioritize fossil fuels over renewable energy sources. But that shift has also included a heavy focus on nuclear. After declaring a national energy emergency upon taking office, Trump issued a flurry of executive orders in May targeted at reinvigorating the US nuclear energy industry and its supply chain. The orders called for quadrupling domestic nuclear capacity to 400 gigawatts (GW) by 2050 and having 10 large reactors under construction in the US by 2030. Jack Britt, senior director of fuel and radiation safety at the Nuclear Energy Institute in Washington, D.C., told the Journal of Commerce that the US push to rebuild its nuclear fuel supply chain has renewed investments in domestic uranium production, conversion and enrichment. “These efforts require major infrastructure,” Britt said. He cited active projects, including the restart of Honeywell’s Metropolis Works conversion facility in Illinois and expanded enrichment activity at the American Centrifuge Plant in Ohio, where Centrus Energy has begun producing high-assay, low-enriched uranium (HALEU) for advanced reactors. “That investment is likely to drive increased activity across the supply chain, including manufacturing, shipping and other services that support nuclear development and deployment,” Britt said. Recharging the US nuclear industry has received broad bipartisan support as a means to generate massive amounts of power consistently, and with little to no carbon emissions. Kim Casey, investor relations manager for US uranium provider Energy Fuels, told the Journal of Commerce that those advantages — along with the rapidly growing energy demands of expansive AI data centers and chip-powered modern technologies — are positioning nuclear as an attractive energy option. “There’s some excitement that nuclear energy is going to fill a gap, because everybody wants to use their phones,” she said. “Everybody wants their data, and they want it now.” <h3>Plant potential for project cargo </h3>The US nuclear industry is coming full circle for Edlow International Company, which has provided global nuclear and radioactive transport since 1957. President Jack Edlow told the Journal of Commerce that when he entered the industry over 50 years ago, most of the world’s uranium was produced, enriched and converted into nuclear fuel in the US. “Now, it’s pretty much the opposite,” he said. “This gives us an opportunity to reconstitute our industry and go back into the world market with US uranium conversion, enrichment and reactor designs, and I’m hopeful that’s what’s going to happen over the next five to 10 years.” Edlow said a significant opportunity for breakbulk and project cargo will come from the development of facilities to enrich processed uranium so it can become fuel for power plants. Nearly all of the enriched uranium the US relies on is imported, and Urenco USA’s centrifuge enrichment plant in New Mexico is the only commercially operating enrichment plant in the US. “New enrichment plants will be big for cargo,” Edlow said. “Those are huge components weighing hundreds of tons each that will come in.” A handful of projects are in the works and could cost $5 billion to $8 billion, depending on their size, Edlow said. “They will require a lot of equipment and time to build,” he said. “You’re probably looking at four years or more to get large-scale capacity.” Among those projects, nuclear supplier Orano USA is developing a multibillion-dollar uranium enrichment facility in Tennessee. In May, Urenco began production at the first phase of an expansion that will increase its New Mexico plant’s capacity by 15% by 2027. And in April, BWX Technologies Inc. (BWXT) acquired 97 acres of land to develop a centrifuge manufacturing facility to support uranium enrichment. Another key source of project cargo would be the development of nuclear plants and reactors. According to the World Nuclear Association (WNA), there are 94 operating reactors in the US, but 41 that have been shut down over the years. Although no new reactors are currently under construction in the US, 21 have been proposed, according to the WNA. A potential growth area for project development is advanced small modular reactors, or SMRs. Whereas traditional nuclear reactors can cost billions and take decades to build, SMRs would consist of modular components that can be delivered and assembled onsite. Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at <a href="mailto:autumn@autumngiusti.com">autumn@autumngiusti.com</a>. </div>

After decades of relatively dormant development, the nuclear industry is in comeback mode, as the US looks to develop large-scale, low-carbon energy sources to feed power-hungry technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) and the energy-intensive production of smartphone microchips. That development could significantly power up breakbulk and project cargo activity over the next decade. To support the varying stages of the nuclear fuel cycle, policy changes and investments are lining up for the US to execute an extensive buildout or new and redeveloped power plants, reactors, mines and enrichment facilities. The second Trump administration has shifted national energy policy to prioritize fossil fuels over renewable energy sources. But that shift has also included a heavy focus on nuclear. After declaring a national energy emergency upon taking office, Trump issued a flurry of executive orders in May targeted at reinvigorating the US nuclear energy industry and its supply chain. The orders called for quadrupling domestic nuclear capacity to 400 gigawatts (GW) by 2050 and having 10 large reactors under construction in the US by 2030. Jack Britt, senior director of fuel and radiation safety at the Nuclear Energy Institute in Washington, D.C., told the Journal of Commerce that the US push to rebuild its nuclear fuel supply chain has renewed investments in domestic uranium production, conversion and enrichment. “These efforts require major infrastructure,” Britt said. He cited active projects, including the restart of Honeywell’s Metropolis Works conversion facility in Illinois and expanded enrichment activity at the American Centrifuge Plant in Ohio, where Centrus Energy has begun producing high-assay, low-enriched uranium (HALEU) for advanced reactors. “That investment is likely to drive increased activity across the supply chain, including manufacturing, shipping and other services that support nuclear development and deployment,” Britt said. Recharging the US nuclear industry has received broad bipartisan support as a means to generate massive amounts of power consistently, and with little to no carbon emissions. Kim Casey, investor relations manager for US uranium provider Energy Fuels, told the Journal of Commerce that those advantages — along with the rapidly growing energy demands of expansive AI data centers and chip-powered modern technologies — are positioning nuclear as an attractive energy option. “There’s some excitement that nuclear energy is going to fill a gap, because everybody wants to use their phones,” she said. “Everybody wants their data, and they want it now.” Plant potential for project cargo The US nuclear industry is coming full circle for Edlow International Company, which has provided global nuclear and radioactive transport since 1957. President Jack Edlow told the Journal of Commerce that when he entered the industry over 50 years ago, most of the world’s uranium was produced, enriched and converted into nuclear fuel in the US. “Now, it’s pretty much the opposite,” he said. “This gives us an opportunity to reconstitute our industry and go back into the world market with US uranium conversion, enrichment and reactor designs, and I’m hopeful that’s what’s going to happen over the next five to 10 years.” Edlow said a significant opportunity for breakbulk and project cargo will come from the development of facilities to enrich processed uranium so it can become fuel for power plants. Nearly all of the enriched uranium the US relies on is imported, and Urenco USA’s centrifuge enrichment plant in New Mexico is the only commercially operating enrichment plant in the US. “New enrichment plants will be big for cargo,” Edlow said. “Those are huge components weighing hundreds of tons each that will come in.” A handful of projects are in the works and could cost $5 billion to $8 billion, depending on their size, Edlow said. “They will require a lot of equipment and time to build,” he said. “You’re probably looking at four years or more to get large-scale capacity.” Among those projects, nuclear supplier Orano USA is developing a multibillion-dollar uranium enrichment facility in Tennessee. In May, Urenco began production at the first phase of an expansion that will increase its New Mexico plant’s capacity by 15% by 2027. And in April, BWX Technologies Inc. (BWXT) acquired 97 acres of land to develop a centrifuge manufacturing facility to support uranium enrichment. Another key source of project cargo would be the development of nuclear plants and reactors. According to the World Nuclear Association (WNA), there are 94 operating reactors in the US, but 41 that have been shut down over the years. Although no new reactors are currently under construction in the US, 21 have been proposed, according to the WNA. A potential growth area for project development is advanced small modular reactors, or SMRs. Whereas traditional nuclear reactors can cost billions and take decades to build, SMRs would consist of modular components that can be delivered and assembled onsite. Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at autumn@autumngiusti.com .

Energy projects

Project cargo

Breakbulk News

US policy, investments line up for project cargo-dependent nuclear buildout

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Ports say they stand to lose about $1 billion in funding for maintenance work because the US Army Corps of Engineers’ budget is not treating so-called donor ports equally. </div>

Ports say they stand to lose about $1 billion in funding for maintenance work because the US Army Corps of Engineers’ budget is not treating so-called donor ports equally.

<div class="phx-topic">US port officials say they could be shortchanged about $1 billion for dredging and maintenance projects because the current budget for the US Army Corps of Engineers does not follow through on a 2020 law aimed at more equal distribution of the fees importers pay for maintaining US harbors.In a letter sent Thursday to a joint Congressional committee on energy and water, the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), along with the directors of 22 ports, said the Corps fiscal year 2025 budget allocation for dredging and other maintenance does not adhere to a provision of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (WRDA 2020).That provision allocated 10% of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) to “donor ports.” Due to their size, donor ports have contributed over 50% of the monies to the HMTF, funded through a 0.125% fee on goods movements, but receive less than 2% of that back for maintenance projects, the AAPA said. “Ports need consistent and predictable funding to plan and execute the billions in additional expanded use projects in their pipelines,” the group said.The AAPA said the specified allocation to donor ports resulted in $332 million of extra funding for dredging and maintenance during fiscal year 2024. Donor ports expected to receive a similar amount in the Army Corps’ fiscal year 2025 work plan, which totals $5.5 billion, but it was not included. The AAPA said that maintenance projects begun in 2024 may stall due to the lack of funding in the 2025 budget. Ports share the cost of dredging and maintenance with the Army Corps, so they will have to make up any difference.With the fiscal year 2026 appropriations for the Army Corps now being drawn up, the concern is that it will also not include the required funding for donor ports. The AAPA said it wants Congress to expressly set aside about $480 million in the next appropriations process for the Army Corps to ensure donor ports get their fair share. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

US port officials say they could be shortchanged about $1 billion for dredging and maintenance projects because the current budget for the US Army Corps of Engineers does not follow through on a 2020 law aimed at more equal distribution of the fees importers pay for maintaining US harbors. In a letter sent Thursday to a joint Congressional committee on energy and water, the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), along with the directors of 22 ports, said the Corps fiscal year 2025 budget allocation for dredging and other maintenance does not adhere to a provision of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (WRDA 2020). That provision allocated 10% of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) to “donor ports.” Due to their size, donor ports have contributed over 50% of the monies to the HMTF, funded through a 0.125% fee on goods movements, but receive less than 2% of that back for maintenance projects, the AAPA said. “Ports need consistent and predictable funding to plan and execute the billions in additional expanded use projects in their pipelines,” the group said. The AAPA said the specified allocation to donor ports resulted in $332 million of extra funding for dredging and maintenance during fiscal year 2024. Donor ports expected to receive a similar amount in the Army Corps’ fiscal year 2025 work plan, which totals $5.5 billion, but it was not included. The AAPA said that maintenance projects begun in 2024 may stall due to the lack of funding in the 2025 budget. Ports share the cost of dredging and maintenance with the Army Corps, so they will have to make up any difference. With the fiscal year 2026 appropriations for the Army Corps now being drawn up, the concern is that it will also not include the required funding for donor ports. The AAPA said it wants Congress to expressly set aside about $480 million in the next appropriations process for the Army Corps to ensure donor ports get their fair share. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Port infrastructure

Big US ports ask Congress to follow law for equal funding of dredging work

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The sanctions list targets the shipping interests of Mohammad Hossein Shamkhani, son of Ali Shamkhani, a political adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.</div>

The sanctions list targets the shipping interests of Mohammad Hossein Shamkhani, son of Ali Shamkhani, a political adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

<div class="phx-topic">Singapore-based ocean carrier SeaLead is terminating the charters of 16 vessels after the US Department of the Treasury sanctioned the fast-growth container line for links to the Iranian government. A slew of fresh sanctions on 115 Iran-linked individuals and their business interests was unveiled by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) this week, impacting 22 container ships. Sixteen of those 22 sanctioned vessels were chartered by SeaLead. According to Alphaliner, SeaLead is the 13th-largest liner operator in the world. The charter terminations will effectively reduce the carrier’s fleet by one-third, removing 16 of the liner’s 53 ships. Of those 53 ships, Alphaliner shows SeaLead owns two and charters the remaining 51. “The company maintains full compliance with applicable sanctions laws and regulatory requirements,” SeaLead said in a statement Thursday in which it confirmed the contract termination of the sanctioned vessels. The sanctions list, which OFAC said is its largest Iran-related sanction action since 2018, targets the shipping interests of Mohammad Hossein Shamkhani, son of Ali Shamkhani, a political adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. “The Shamkhani family’s shipping empire highlights how the Iranian regime elites leverage their positions to accrue massive wealth and fund the regime’s dangerous behavior,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said a statement from OFAC.  The 16 vessels include Ale, Bertie, Bigli, Hakuna Matata, Lidia, Moana, Pinocchio, Pumba, Rantanplan, Simba, Star, Tex, Timon, Yogi, Zagor and Ace, SeaLead told the Journal of Commerce. Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:Laura.Robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>.  </div>

Singapore-based ocean carrier SeaLead is terminating the charters of 16 vessels after the US Department of the Treasury sanctioned the fast-growth container line for links to the Iranian government. A slew of fresh sanctions on 115 Iran-linked individuals and their business interests was unveiled by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) this week, impacting 22 container ships. Sixteen of those 22 sanctioned vessels were chartered by SeaLead. According to Alphaliner, SeaLead is the 13th-largest liner operator in the world. The charter terminations will effectively reduce the carrier’s fleet by one-third, removing 16 of the liner’s 53 ships. Of those 53 ships, Alphaliner shows SeaLead owns two and charters the remaining 51. “The company maintains full compliance with applicable sanctions laws and regulatory requirements,” SeaLead said in a statement Thursday in which it confirmed the contract termination of the sanctioned vessels. The sanctions list, which OFAC said is its largest Iran-related sanction action since 2018, targets the shipping interests of Mohammad Hossein Shamkhani, son of Ali Shamkhani, a political adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. “The Shamkhani family’s shipping empire highlights how the Iranian regime elites leverage their positions to accrue massive wealth and fund the regime’s dangerous behavior,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said a statement from OFAC.  The 16 vessels include Ale, Bertie, Bigli, Hakuna Matata, Lidia, Moana, Pinocchio, Pumba, Rantanplan, Simba, Star, Tex, Timon, Yogi, Zagor and Ace, SeaLead told the Journal of Commerce. Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com . 

Maritime

New US sanctions on Iran cut SeaLead’s vessel fleet by one-third

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The trans-Pacific carrier said China volumes were whipsawed by the Trump administration’s trade policy, with shippers likely to slow their ordering during the third quarter.</div>

The trans-Pacific carrier said China volumes were whipsawed by the Trump administration’s trade policy, with shippers likely to slow their ordering during the third quarter.

<div class="phx-topic">US-based ocean carrier Matson saw its trans-Pacific container business drop during the second quarter as volatile US tariff policy prompted customers to pause and then quickly resume shipments. The carrier expects volumes and rates to weaken through the rest of 2025, as shippers have frontloaded much of their seasonal freight. Matson said late Thursday that second-quarter container volumes on its expedited services from China fell 14.6% from a year earlier, with shippers whipsawed by the Trump administration’s implementation of so-called reciprocal tariffs. The Jones Act carrier said its customers negotiated with their Asian suppliers throughout April on an “order-by-order” basis on how to pay for the tariffs. Freight activity quickly resumed in mid-May after the White House issued a temporary reprieve on tariffs, Matson said, adding that higher freight rates for its premium services mitigated some of the effects of the volume decline. Matson’s ocean transportation revenue fell 2.1% during the quarter to $675.6 million, while operating income fell 9.5% year over year to $98.6 million. Matson’s <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/chinese-tariffs-cloud-trans-pacific-outlook-for-2025-matson-5999631">Vietnam services</a> benefited from the tariff volatility. It said container volumes from that country were up year over year as shippers sought to source goods outside of China. Matson has previously said freight from Vietnam makes up about 20% of its trans-Pacific business. Matson’s Jones Act business between US ports saw mixed results in the second quarter. The Hawaii business saw a modest 2.6% volume gain thanks to the state’s relatively stable economy and tourism, while its Alaska business was slightly higher due to ongoing economic growth driven by oil and gas development. But the carrier’s Guam services saw a 2.2% decrease due to more muted economic activity. Matson expects third-quarter volumes and rates will be lower than a year ago as customers decided to move second-half seasonal goods early to avoid further tariff volatility, which will result in a “muted peak season.” As a result, Matson said its third-quarter operating income in ocean transportation will be “meaningfully lower” than the $242.3 million posted a year ago. For the full year, Matson said operating income in ocean transportation will be “moderately lower” than 2024’s $551.3 million. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com ">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

US-based ocean carrier Matson saw its trans-Pacific container business drop during the second quarter as volatile US tariff policy prompted customers to pause and then quickly resume shipments. The carrier expects volumes and rates to weaken through the rest of 2025, as shippers have frontloaded much of their seasonal freight. Matson said late Thursday that second-quarter container volumes on its expedited services from China fell 14.6% from a year earlier, with shippers whipsawed by the Trump administration’s implementation of so-called reciprocal tariffs. The Jones Act carrier said its customers negotiated with their Asian suppliers throughout April on an “order-by-order” basis on how to pay for the tariffs. Freight activity quickly resumed in mid-May after the White House issued a temporary reprieve on tariffs, Matson said, adding that higher freight rates for its premium services mitigated some of the effects of the volume decline. Matson’s ocean transportation revenue fell 2.1% during the quarter to $675.6 million, while operating income fell 9.5% year over year to $98.6 million. Matson’s Vietnam services benefited from the tariff volatility. It said container volumes from that country were up year over year as shippers sought to source goods outside of China. Matson has previously said freight from Vietnam makes up about 20% of its trans-Pacific business. Matson’s Jones Act business between US ports saw mixed results in the second quarter. The Hawaii business saw a modest 2.6% volume gain thanks to the state’s relatively stable economy and tourism, while its Alaska business was slightly higher due to ongoing economic growth driven by oil and gas development. But the carrier’s Guam services saw a 2.2% decrease due to more muted economic activity. Matson expects third-quarter volumes and rates will be lower than a year ago as customers decided to move second-half seasonal goods early to avoid further tariff volatility, which will result in a “muted peak season.” As a result, Matson said its third-quarter operating income in ocean transportation will be “meaningfully lower” than the $242.3 million posted a year ago. For the full year, Matson said operating income in ocean transportation will be “moderately lower” than 2024’s $551.3 million. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Trans-Pacific

Matson expects dampened peak season after tariff-driven rush in Q2

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Marine terminal operators may be forced to resell or even abandon cranes if the tariffs take effect, which would further erode US port productivity.</div>

Marine terminal operators may be forced to resell or even abandon cranes if the tariffs take effect, which would further erode US port productivity.

<div class="phx-topic">US ports and terminal operators <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ports-look-to-delay-proposed-us-tariffs-on-chinese-made-cranes-6007628">facing up to 270% tariffs on ship-to-shore cranes</a> they’ll receive from China in the coming months are considering reselling the units or laying them up in bond if they don’t receive exemptions from the Trump administration. The tariffs taking effect Oct. 14, absent relief of some kind, will make the total cost unfeasible for ports and terminals, tripling the price tag in some cases. While the industry lobbies the White House for an exemption, marine terminal operators may be forced to resell or even abandon cranes if the tariffs take effect, said Carl Bentzel, president of the National Association of Waterfront Employers (NAWE). <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6055442_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Such moves would interrupt normal US replenishment demand of 20 to 25 cranes per year on an installed base of an estimated 450 ship-to-shore (STS) cranes deployed at ports in the US and US territories. “Without relief or accommodation, these tariffs pose a serious risk of rendering critical investments economically unfeasible and will ultimately undermine the very policy objectives they are intended to advance,” Ports America CEO Matthew Leech told the Journal of Commerce. Port Houston is proposing grandfathering China-built ship-to-shore cranes that were under contract and in fabrication before Dec. 31, 2024. “This proposal would solve the Port Houston issue, along with similar issues Port Freeport, Port of Virginia and Ports America have with their STS cranes currently completing fabrication,” <a href="https://comments.ustr.gov/s/commentdetails?rid=HTCTBWHHBW">according to Port Houston Executive Director Charlie Jenkins</a>. But with that solution not guaranteed, alternative options being considered by ports and terminals include not putting the cranes to use. “If they must pay these tariffs, they will have three options,” Cary Davis, president of the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), wrote in a May letter to US Trade Representative (USTR) Jamison Greer. “First, they can let the cranes collect dust while they are held in bonded warehouses at an additional cost. Second, they can attempt to slash budgets elsewhere to pay the tariff costs. Or third, ports planning future procurement can purchase used cranes instead, which are not as structurally or operationally sound.” <h3>Port productivity at risk </h3>The result of not upgrading or expanding ship-to-shore crane capacity would have several negative consequences, including lower port productivity driven by longer wait times for ships, delayed cargo availability and the inability to handle larger ships. That would further erode the competitiveness of US ports, which rank low in global port productivity rankings and are among the most expensive in the world on a per-container lifted basis. The main benefit of larger cranes is greater height, meaning US ports would face greater operational challenges handing larger ships without the upgrades. The Port of Virginia <a href="https://comments.ustr.gov/s/commentdetails?rid=73RDQKH6G2">told the USTR</a> it expects to be handling vessels in the 18,000 to 20,000-TEU range in the coming years, but that “without continued investment in greater port capacity, these larger ships are hampered from consistently calling the East Coast because the existing infrastructure, specifically ship-to-shore cranes, cannot support them.” Houston is a case in point in terms of the immediate challenges US ports are facing from the potential tariffs. The port is under contract with dominant Chinese crane manufacturer ZPMC for eight cranes at $14 million each scheduled for delivery in the spring of 2026. If it is forced to pay the full tariffs, it will owe $302.4 million in total, which would equate to more than half of the port’s annual container operating revenues and greater than a full year of operating cash flow, Jenkins wrote. The tax figure includes a proposed additional 100% tariff on China-made ship-to-shore cranes on top of 25% tariffs imposed in 2024 and the 145% in tariffs that still could be applied to all Chinese goods absent a broader settlement. For Ports America, the price tag for a single STS crane scheduled to arrive at Gulfport in early September is $16 million. “However, any scenario in which the total landed cost — including applicable penalties, tariffs and related charges — exceeds $22 million would render the equipment economically unviable for deployment,” Leech said. “In such a case, the only practical options would be to resell and re-export the crane or to store it in a bonded facility without commissioning it or paying duties.” <h3>Reshoring push from White House </h3>New legislation just introduced in the House of Representatives seeks to encourage the domestic <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/congress-eyes-a-tax-credit-for-reshoring-port-crane-manufacturing-6053124">building of cranes to lessen the dependence on China-built equipment</a>, which makes up 80% of cranes at US ports and has raised security concerns. Although no solid plan to support US manufacturing or assembly of cranes has materialized as yet, affected ports appear to universally support the idea. The Canadian infrastructure investor Brookfield is discussing such an initiative in collaboration with Matsui-Paceco, Paceco being the builder of the original container cranes for Sea-Land Service Inc. in the 1960s. A White House meeting in April attended by several US port leaders included participation by Peter Stone, a leader of Brookfield’s US port business. At that meeting, according to one participant, the message from White House officials was: “We don’t understand why US industry is buying Chinese equipment and we don’t want you to. We want you to get on board with a program that creates availability of US-assembled cranes.” “There was no objection to this from the assembled ports assuming a transition agreement covering price, timing and specs,” the meeting participant told the Journal of Commerce. “Currently, there is ongoing engagement on developing a framework to nearshore and onshore STS crane manufacturing between the Trump administration, Congress and industry stakeholders. However, no agreement has been proposed as of yet.” If the threatened tariffs are implemented and remain in place, a prospect ports are taking seriously, it would stunt the planned expansion of US port capacity. According to an AAPA survey conducted with the US Maritime Administration, 165 cranes are either on order or will be ordered for delivery from China over the next 10 years, potentially being subjected to a prohibitive $6.7 billion in tariffs and penalties. Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

US ports and terminal operators facing up to 270% tariffs on ship-to-shore cranes they’ll receive from China in the coming months are considering reselling the units or laying them up in bond if they don’t receive exemptions from the Trump administration. The tariffs taking effect Oct. 14, absent relief of some kind, will make the total cost unfeasible for ports and terminals, tripling the price tag in some cases. While the industry lobbies the White House for an exemption, marine terminal operators may be forced to resell or even abandon cranes if the tariffs take effect, said Carl Bentzel, president of the National Association of Waterfront Employers (NAWE). Such moves would interrupt normal US replenishment demand of 20 to 25 cranes per year on an installed base of an estimated 450 ship-to-shore (STS) cranes deployed at ports in the US and US territories. “Without relief or accommodation, these tariffs pose a serious risk of rendering critical investments economically unfeasible and will ultimately undermine the very policy objectives they are intended to advance,” Ports America CEO Matthew Leech told the Journal of Commerce. Port Houston is proposing grandfathering China-built ship-to-shore cranes that were under contract and in fabrication before Dec. 31, 2024. “This proposal would solve the Port Houston issue, along with similar issues Port Freeport, Port of Virginia and Ports America have with their STS cranes currently completing fabrication,” according to Port Houston Executive Director Charlie Jenkins . But with that solution not guaranteed, alternative options being considered by ports and terminals include not putting the cranes to use. “If they must pay these tariffs, they will have three options,” Cary Davis, president of the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), wrote in a May letter to US Trade Representative (USTR) Jamison Greer. “First, they can let the cranes collect dust while they are held in bonded warehouses at an additional cost. Second, they can attempt to slash budgets elsewhere to pay the tariff costs. Or third, ports planning future procurement can purchase used cranes instead, which are not as structurally or operationally sound.” Port productivity at risk The result of not upgrading or expanding ship-to-shore crane capacity would have several negative consequences, including lower port productivity driven by longer wait times for ships, delayed cargo availability and the inability to handle larger ships. That would further erode the competitiveness of US ports, which rank low in global port productivity rankings and are among the most expensive in the world on a per-container lifted basis. The main benefit of larger cranes is greater height, meaning US ports would face greater operational challenges handing larger ships without the upgrades. The Port of Virginia told the USTR it expects to be handling vessels in the 18,000 to 20,000-TEU range in the coming years, but that “without continued investment in greater port capacity, these larger ships are hampered from consistently calling the East Coast because the existing infrastructure, specifically ship-to-shore cranes, cannot support them.” Houston is a case in point in terms of the immediate challenges US ports are facing from the potential tariffs. The port is under contract with dominant Chinese crane manufacturer ZPMC for eight cranes at $14 million each scheduled for delivery in the spring of 2026. If it is forced to pay the full tariffs, it will owe $302.4 million in total, which would equate to more than half of the port’s annual container operating revenues and greater than a full year of operating cash flow, Jenkins wrote. The tax figure includes a proposed additional 100% tariff on China-made ship-to-shore cranes on top of 25% tariffs imposed in 2024 and the 145% in tariffs that still could be applied to all Chinese goods absent a broader settlement. For Ports America, the price tag for a single STS crane scheduled to arrive at Gulfport in early September is $16 million. “However, any scenario in which the total landed cost — including applicable penalties, tariffs and related charges — exceeds $22 million would render the equipment economically unviable for deployment,” Leech said. “In such a case, the only practical options would be to resell and re-export the crane or to store it in a bonded facility without commissioning it or paying duties.” Reshoring push from White House New legislation just introduced in the House of Representatives seeks to encourage the domestic building of cranes to lessen the dependence on China-built equipment , which makes up 80% of cranes at US ports and has raised security concerns. Although no solid plan to support US manufacturing or assembly of cranes has materialized as yet, affected ports appear to universally support the idea. The Canadian infrastructure investor Brookfield is discussing such an initiative in collaboration with Matsui-Paceco, Paceco being the builder of the original container cranes for Sea-Land Service Inc. in the 1960s. A White House meeting in April attended by several US port leaders included participation by Peter Stone, a leader of Brookfield’s US port business. At that meeting, according to one participant, the message from White House officials was: “We don’t understand why US industry is buying Chinese equipment and we don’t want you to. We want you to get on board with a program that creates availability of US-assembled cranes.” “There was no objection to this from the assembled ports assuming a transition agreement covering price, timing and specs,” the meeting participant told the Journal of Commerce. “Currently, there is ongoing engagement on developing a framework to nearshore and onshore STS crane manufacturing between the Trump administration, Congress and industry stakeholders. However, no agreement has been proposed as of yet.” If the threatened tariffs are implemented and remain in place, a prospect ports are taking seriously, it would stunt the planned expansion of US port capacity. According to an AAPA survey conducted with the US Maritime Administration, 165 cranes are either on order or will be ordered for delivery from China over the next 10 years, potentially being subjected to a prohibitive $6.7 billion in tariffs and penalties. Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

Port News

Marine terminals

Looming US tariffs put economic viability of STS cranes in doubt

Use code TPM25GW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION AND TPM26

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!

Use code TPMGW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

UPGRADE TO GOLD FOR JUST $595

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

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code STS20 at checkout to save 20% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

At SSA Marine Mexico, we firmly believe that business development must go hand in hand with social and environmental well-being. Our vision is not solely focused on operating efficiently, but also on creating a meaningful and positive impact in the communities where we are present. Since 1995, we have reaffirmed this commitment through tangible actions that reflect our core values of responsibility, solidarity, and sustainability. <span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-3_2 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-medium" data-figure-size="medium" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="3:2"><img src="/content-assets/1752584535914_Photo%201.jpg" alt="" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit"> A Year of Major Achievements Over the past year, we allocated more than $107,000 USD to the implementation of 60 social and environmental projects, positively impacting over 7,800 people across various regions of Mexico. Each initiative was designed with a holistic approach, addressing key areas that contribute to long-term community development. Education: Laying the Foundation for the Future Education is one of the most powerful tools to promote social mobility and equitable development. At SSA Marine Mexico, we support academic initiatives that inspire and empower the next generation of leaders. One of our most impactful partnerships was with the University of Colima, where we sponsored the “Reto Camp” program. This initiative encourages university students to develop innovative solutions in the fields of sustainability, logistics, and port operations, offering them mentorship, tools, and real-world challenges to solve. In addition, we donated microscopes, school supplies, and educational materials to institutions in underserved communities, helping to improve the learning environment and provide students with the resources they need to succeed. Health and Sports: Promoting Wellness We believe that healthy communities are strong communities. We have supported several local sporting events and provided direct assistance to talented athletes, enabling them to pursue their passions and represent their regions with pride. Beyond sports, we also strengthened our collaboration with critical emergency response organizations such as the Mexican Red Cross and Civil Protection. Our contributions helped enhance their readiness and capabilities in times of crisis, ensuring better outcomes for those affected by emergencies. Supporting Vulnerable Groups: Reaching Those Who Need It Most A core part of our social responsibility efforts is directed toward supporting vulnerable populations. We have contributed to a range of initiatives focused on children, migrants, and at-risk families. These efforts included donations to orphanages and shelters, as well as support for the National Institute of Migration and grassroots organizations dedicated to protecting and empowering people facing adversity. By standing with those in need, we reinforce our commitment to inclusion and social justice, values that are central to our identity as a responsible company. <span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-3_2 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-medium" data-figure-size="medium" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="3:2"><img src="/content-assets/1752584944645_Photo%202.png" alt="" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit">Culture: Strengthening Community Identity Cultural identity is a key element in building resilient and united communities. At SSA Marine Mexico, we actively participate in the organization and sponsorship of cultural events that celebrate local traditions and foster civic pride. Working alongside port authorities and municipal governments, we helped bring music, art, and heritage to the forefront, creating spaces for community engagement and intercultural dialogue. Environment: Investing in the Planet Our commitment to sustainability goes beyond operations—it’s a philosophy that drives every decision we make. We have partnered with environmental institutions to carry out reforestation campaigns, beach cleanups, and conservation efforts. In collaboration with the Institute for the Environment, we supported initiatives aimed at decarbonization, biodiversity protection, and environmental education. By involving our employees and local volunteers in these actions, we also foster a culture of environmental stewardship throughout our organization and our surrounding communities. Innovation for a Sustainable Future Sustainability is not just about doing good—it’s also about doing things better. In 2024, we invested $22 million USD in the acquisition of 11 state-of-the-art E-RTG cranes. These electric rubber-tired gantry cranes represent a significant technological advancement in port equipment. Seven of them are already operating on clean electric energy, resulting in a reduction of nearly 4,000 tons of CO₂ emissions and improving operational efficiency by 7%. The remaining four cranes are fully compatible with future electrification, underscoring our long-term strategy to modernize our operations in an environmentally responsible way. This investment is part of a broader innovation roadmap that includes digitalization, automation, and cleaner energy sources—all designed to ensure that our ports continue to grow without compromising the health of our planet. Building a Better Tomorrow, Together At SSA Marine Mexico, we understand that sustainability is a shared and ongoing responsibility. True impact requires collaboration across sectors, long-term vision, and unwavering commitment. That is why we continue to work hand-in-hand with local authorities, non-profit organizations, universities, and our own employees to create solutions that are both scalable and sustainable. Our journey is far from over. In the years ahead, we will continue to deepen our community engagement, explore cleaner technologies, and strengthen the social fabric of the regions where we operate. Each initiative, no matter the size, is a step toward building a future where business success goes hand-in-hand with human and environmental prosperity. We are proud of what we have achieved in 2024, but we are even more excited about what lies ahead. SSA Marine Mexico — Moving the World, Caring for People and Planet. LINK: https://www.ssamarine.mx/<span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-16_9 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-small" data-figure-size="small" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="16:9"><img src="/content-assets/1752585040485_SSA%20Marine%20Mexico%20logo%20150pxW.png" alt="" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit">

Photo 2.png

SSA Marine Mexico: True Commitment to Sustainability

SAVE ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code TPM25GW995 to save $500 on an annual Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE: Use code STSW20 to save 20% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to S/SP - 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 TPMGW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on TPM26! 

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

Monthly publication providing an editorial deep dive into global supply chain news

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

Discover the news and analysis of supply chain strategies, sourcing and trends covered by the Journal of Commerce. Comprehensive coverage includes customs, trade news, transport news and the latest information about trade regulations.

Stay informed with the latest regulation news and trade updates. Explore comprehensive transportation news and trade regulations today.

Transport, Trade and Regulation News | Journal of Commerce

The Journal of Commerce’s supply chain news and analysis impacting the management of end-to-end supply chains reports on supply chain strategies, cargo visibility, inventory trends, sourcing, customs certification and contract logistics. Supply chain news coverage also delves into refrigerated shipping advancements and management of inventory status, regulatory updates and government funding projects.

Our logistics technology news include logistics technology startups, solutions, and the impact of technology on logistics and supply chain management.

Logistics Technology News | Journal of Commerce

Logistics Technology News

A thorough cool cargoes news by Journal of Commerce. Learn about the latest trends in refrigerated cargo transportation, weight capacity, technology, and more.

Cool Cargo News | Journal of Commerce

Cool Cargo News

Journal of Commerce keeps you informed on the latest last mile news with comprehensive coverage of carriers, logistics, and last mile transportation solutions.

Last Mile News | Journal of Commerce

Last Mile News

Discover the latest industrial real estate news and trends. Covering projects, real estate supply chain, logistics, pricing, cross dock facilities, and more.

Industrial Real Estate News | Journal of Commerce

Industrial Real Estate News

Stay updated on supply chain strategies, cargo visibility, inventory trends and more with our comprehensive supply chain news and analysis.

Latest News

More News & Analysis

US policy, investments line up for project cargo-dependent nuclear buildout

Big US ports ask Congress to follow law for equal funding of dredging work

New US sanctions on Iran cut SeaLead’s vessel fleet by one-third