Protecting Health Makes Business Sense

Economists: Shipping Container Fee OK for State Trade
New Study Bolsters Legislation to Fund Clean Air Strategies
through a Container Fee
EN ESPAÑOL

A newly completed study by two shipping experts (Cargo on the Move Through California: Evaluating Container Fee Impacts on Port Choice, professors James Corbett, University of Delaware, and James Winebrake, Rochester Institute of Technology) found that collecting $30 per shipping container at California's three largest ports would have minimal to no impacts on business. The findings counter claims that such a fee would drive businesses away from California ports.

The findings bolster support for legislation that aims to collect a modest $30 for each massive container moving through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to fund strategies to reduce air pollution, while also increasing port security and rail efficiency. SB 927 (formerly SB 760) is the Coalition for Clean Air’s highest legislative priority because 2,400 Californians die prematurely each year due to air pollution from transporting goods, according to the California Air Resources Board. Until now, the lives and lungs of Californians have been subsidizing international trade. SB 927, if passed and signed into law, would collect the necessary funds to more adequately cover the full costs of trade – including $150 million per year to protect health by reducing air pollution.

This new study affirms that measures to pay now for these much-needed upgrades to our state’s goods transportation system will benefit business and the general public.

The new economic report concluded:

• Trade growth in California’s ports is projected to triple over the next 15 years. This increase will more than offset any loss of business that might result from a few ships diverting to other ports to avoid the fee.
• A port user fee, or container fee, at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach would result in ship diversions of less than 1.5 percent. This, the authors note, is a conservative estimate, so diversion would likely be even less.