As expected, the Oakland Board of Port Commissioners took little time to agree on raising container fees at yesterday’s meeting. The only questions for shippers now: “when and by how much?”
Framed as a “green” measure meant to help fund pollution reduction initiatives and to improve infrastructure, the “Maritime Air Quality Policy Statement” was passed unanimously by appointed commissioners who were urged by shippers to resist a strategy they characterized as misguided.
“Shippers have demonstrated our willingness to pay our fair share of the cost of improving air quality and infrastructure in the ports,” said Steve Pfister, senior vice president, government relations for the National Retail Federation (NRF). “But we cannot support proposals that would be illegal, unfair, and ultimately ineffective.”
The NRF-backed alternate calls for statewide emissions standards, would create a fund to help pay for truck replacement, and would create a public-private partnership to pay for infrastructure improvements. Independent truckers would not be banned. Released in March 2007, the plan was prepared jointly by NRF, the American Association of Railroads, the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, the Waterfront Coalition and other groups involved in the shipment of cargo through California ports.
“While the fees address only California ports, they are of interest to retailers nationwide because those ports are the gateway for the majority of merchandise imported from Asia,” said Pfister
Objections were also voiced by Peter Gatti, executive vice president, National Industrial Transportation League.
“New fees should only be approved after comprehensive and deliberate talks with industry stakeholders,” he stated in a letter to the port late last week.
In an interview with LM, a port of spokesman observed that the port’s terminal and carrier tenants were asked for their comments before the commission made its ruling.
Framed as a “green” measure meant to help fund pollution reduction initiatives and to improve infrastructure, the “Maritime Air Quality Policy Statement” was passed unanimously by appointed commissioners who were urged by shippers to resist a strategy they characterized as misguided.
“Shippers have demonstrated our willingness to pay our fair share of the cost of improving air quality and infrastructure in the ports,” said Steve Pfister, senior vice president, government relations for the National Retail Federation (NRF). “But we cannot support proposals that would be illegal, unfair, and ultimately ineffective.”
The NRF-backed alternate calls for statewide emissions standards, would create a fund to help pay for truck replacement, and would create a public-private partnership to pay for infrastructure improvements. Independent truckers would not be banned. Released in March 2007, the plan was prepared jointly by NRF, the American Association of Railroads, the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, the Waterfront Coalition and other groups involved in the shipment of cargo through California ports.
“While the fees address only California ports, they are of interest to retailers nationwide because those ports are the gateway for the majority of merchandise imported from Asia,” said Pfister
Objections were also voiced by Peter Gatti, executive vice president, National Industrial Transportation League.
“New fees should only be approved after comprehensive and deliberate talks with industry stakeholders,” he stated in a letter to the port late last week.
In an interview with LM, a port of spokesman observed that the port’s terminal and carrier tenants were asked for their comments before the commission made its ruling.