<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">If shippers found the post-IMO 2020 bunker fuel formulas confusing and misaligned across ocean carriers, just wait until they see the surcharges linked to Europe’s new emissions trading system, says analyst Lars Jensen.</div>

If shippers found the post-IMO 2020 bunker fuel formulas confusing and misaligned across ocean carriers, just wait until they see the surcharges linked to Europe’s new emissions trading system, says analyst Lars Jensen.

3686967_FI.jpg

<div>Europe’s implementation of a carbon tax on shipping, also known as the emissions trading system (ETS), is now only three months away. Note that this applies not just to shipping within the EU but also to all shipments to and from the EU. As predicted, carriers are now beginning to announce ETS-related surcharges from the first quarter of 2024, with <a>Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd as first movers</a>.<div><img></div>To some degree, there is a sense of déjà vu. This very much has the same feel as the fourth quarter of 2019 with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) 2020 low-sulfur rules about to be...

Europe’s implementation of a carbon tax on shipping, also known as the emissions trading system (ETS), is now only three months away. Note that this applies not just to shipping within the EU but also to all shipments to and from the EU. As predicted, carriers are now beginning to announce ETS-related surcharges from the first quarter of 2024, with Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd as first movers . To some degree, there is a sense of déjà vu. This very much has the same feel as the fourth quarter of 2019 with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) 2020 low-sulfur rules about to be implemented and the carriers introducing new fuel surcharges. And, yes, the mechanism is largely the same. However, there are some differences which are likely to make this even more confusing for the shippers.  The fuel surcharges used by the carriers are usually adjusted quarterly. This means that the Q4 2023 fuel surcharge is based on actual fuel prices seen in the three-month period from June to August. A slight, but manageable, time lag and at least shippers have the visibility that the fuel surcharge is adjusted based on actual prices in the market.  The new ETS surcharges will be much more difficult to handle.   A carrier has to report their emissions at a vessel level for full-year 2024. Then in September 2025, they have to buy EU allowances for their emissions at the price prevailing at that future time. Hence the ETS surcharges carriers add in January 2024 will either be based on pure guesswork or based on the price in January 2024 which may, or may not, in any way reflect the actual cost to be paid in September 2025.  The next problem is that the ETS is measured, and paid for, at the vessel level. It is “easy” to measure the emissions of the vessels. In reality there are also some methodological problems with this, but for the sake of argument let us assume that measuring the emissions of the vessel itself is actually precise and doable.  But for the shipper, the emissions of the vessel itself is of no use. The shipper moves, for example, a container from Rotterdam in North Europe to Lagos in West Africa. The shipper needs to know the emissions per FEU and not per vessel. And this is where the problem arises.  How do you apportion the emissions from the whole vessel down to the individual container? The is no single scientifically correct way of doing it. You can choose to do this in many ways. What about empty backhaul containers? You can choose to allocate the emissions of these onto the full headhaul containers — after all this is the cargo that is causing the empties to occur. Perfectly valid choice. You can also choose a simpler approach and say the emissions are the same for headhaul and backhaul full containers. As long as the sum of all the individual containers add up to the total emissions of the vessel, both choices are equally correct.   Carriers will choose different approaches  And there are many other similar choices that must be made. Every carrier will choose a different way of doing this. This is already clear from their bunker surcharges from IMO 2020 where they are allocating fuel costs. It will be no different for allocating emissions. A practical example is the guidelines published in recent weeks by Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd in relation to the example above with a container from Rotterdam to Lagos. Maersk is indicating a potential surcharge of 152 EUR per FEU whereas Hapag-Lloyd is indicating 34 EUR per FEU. In all likelihood, this is down to a combination of different ways of allocating emissions at the container level and different approaches on how to handle the severe uncertainty related to having to charge now for an unknown cost to be paid in September 2025.  There are an increasing number of companies — notably some freight forwarders as well as independent third-party companies — promoting their own emissions calculation models. Several have been adamant that they are able to calculate these emissions accurately. But caveat emptor: This is not the full reality. As outlined above, the easy part is measuring the emissions at the vessel level. Likely, they can indeed deliver this fairly accurately. The problem is the container level. This is based on choices. As long as the emissions of the individual containers add up to match the total emissions of the vessel, no one choice can be said to be more correct than another.   Difficult to compare methodologies across carriers, forwarders  For shippers, this presents a problem as it becomes very difficult to compare emissions across carriers. It similarly becomes difficult to compare across forwarders who might use different methodologies. And if you choose an independent third party, then, yes, you can compare across both carriers and forwarders, but different third-party providers will likely also provide different results, hence you get a lock-in with a single provider if you want to have longer-term consistent measurements.  And before anyone suggests that the best way would be for the carriers to agree on a common standard for the ETS surcharge, then it should be noted that such an approach would constitute illegal collusion under EU competition law.  If shippers found the post-IMO 2020 bunker fuel formulas confusing and misaligned across the carriers, just wait until they see the ETS surcharges.  Contact Lars Jensen at  lars.jensen@vespucci-maritime.com . 

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

International ports

Container Shipping News

Coming implementation of European ETS setting up for a predictable mess: analyst

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">STG said the filing will reset its balance sheet and reduce debt obligations, but drayage, domestic intermodal, transloading and warehousing operations will not be affected.</div>

STG said the filing will reset its balance sheet and reduce debt obligations, but drayage, domestic intermodal, transloading and warehousing operations will not be affected.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">STG Logistics, the US’s fourth-largest asset-based intermodal marketing company (IMC), filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in New Jersey Monday, entering a court-supervised restructuring that the company said will reduce its debt while keeping freight moving without disruption. STG will reduce funded debt by approximately $952 million, a deleveraging of about 91%, while securing commitments for up to $150 million of new capital, according to the agreement included in the bankruptcy filing. STG, which maintains a large drayage presence in the Port of New York and New Jersey, among other East Coast ports, expects to emerge from Chapter 11 in about five months. The new financing will be structured as debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing, a form of court-approved bankruptcy that provides cash while STG continues day-to-day operations. The restructuring will change after STG exits bankruptcy. The financing is known as a debt-for-equity swap, under which the participating lender group will trade its debt claims for ownership of the business upon exiting bankruptcy. The new ownership group will be private equity firms Antares Capital, Fortress Investment Group and Invesco, which were part of a controversial 2024 financing transaction that triggered litigation by STG’s minority lenders. Ohio-based STG owns about 15,000 domestic containers, behind J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Hub Group and Schneider National. STG also operates a joint service with CSX Transportation called RailPlus, a door-to-door domestic intermodal product covering nearly 350 lanes across the US. STG owns 32 warehouses across North America and offers transloading operations for international shippers. The company runs agency-based ocean drayage operations in US ports and inland rail ramps. STG said the filing will reset its balance sheet and reduce debt obligations, but drayage, domestic intermodal, transloading and warehousing operations will not be impacted. Employees and drivers will continue to be paid, as will key vendors, including rail partners such as CSX and Union Pacific Railroad. STG’s bankruptcy was anticipated as the company faces multiple lawsuits and lacked the financial resiliency of larger intermodal competitors to navigate a freight recession approaching its fourth year. S&amp;P Global, the parent company of the Journal of Commerce, lowered STG’s credit rating in July to CCC, warning that free cash flow would end 2025 at $110 million in the red and that STG could run out of money early this year. A CCC rating is considered speculative-grade credit with a high risk of default. STG hired Kirkland &amp; Ellis and PJT Partners, firms known for bankruptcy filings, credit analysts at Octus reported last month. <h3>Lawsuits affected </h3>STG’s bankruptcy will impact two legal disputes involving the company. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin sued STG Logistics in December 2023 for worker misclassification, seeking back wages and penalties for more than 300 drivers. The lawsuit centers on the rules governing who qualifies as an employee versus an independent contractor. Like California’s AB5, New Jersey applies an “ABC test” that presumes employee status unless a company can satisfy three “prongs,” a high bar in drayage and trucking models. Those prongs are that the worker is free from the control of the hiring entity, that the work is performed outside the usual course of company business, and that the worker is engaged in an independently established trade or occupation. The New Jersey case would be frozen and transferred to the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy filing comes a week after a New York state judge allowed another lawsuit by minority lenders Axos Financial and Siemens Financial Services to move forward, according to The Wall Street Journal. Axos and Siemens were lenders in STG’s 2022 financing to acquire the intermodal division of XPO Logistics. In October 2024, STG announced a $300 million financing package, but Axos and Siemens later sued, alleging the deal also functioned as a liability-management transaction that shifted collateral and other protections toward new lenders, leaving them with weaker claims in bankruptcy. The October 2024 transaction included Antares, Fortress, and Invesco, according to the Journal. The New York judge described the Axos and Siemens allegations as “lender bullying,” the Journal reported. Axos and Siemens were not parties to the agreement filed with the court. The filing triggers an automatic stay to the New York case, pausing litigation against the debtor as the restructuring proceeds. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a></div>

STG Logistics, the US’s fourth-largest asset-based intermodal marketing company (IMC), filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in New Jersey Monday, entering a court-supervised restructuring that the company said will reduce its debt while keeping freight moving without disruption. STG will reduce funded debt by approximately $952 million, a deleveraging of about 91%, while securing commitments for up to $150 million of new capital, according to the agreement included in the bankruptcy filing. STG, which maintains a large drayage presence in the Port of New York and New Jersey, among other East Coast ports, expects to emerge from Chapter 11 in about five months. The new financing will be structured as debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing, a form of court-approved bankruptcy that provides cash while STG continues day-to-day operations. The restructuring will change after STG exits bankruptcy. The financing is known as a debt-for-equity swap, under which the participating lender group will trade its debt claims for ownership of the business upon exiting bankruptcy. The new ownership group will be private equity firms Antares Capital, Fortress Investment Group and Invesco, which were part of a controversial 2024 financing transaction that triggered litigation by STG’s minority lenders. Ohio-based STG owns about 15,000 domestic containers, behind J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Hub Group and Schneider National. STG also operates a joint service with CSX Transportation called RailPlus, a door-to-door domestic intermodal product covering nearly 350 lanes across the US. STG owns 32 warehouses across North America and offers transloading operations for international shippers. The company runs agency-based ocean drayage operations in US ports and inland rail ramps. STG said the filing will reset its balance sheet and reduce debt obligations, but drayage, domestic intermodal, transloading and warehousing operations will not be impacted. Employees and drivers will continue to be paid, as will key vendors, including rail partners such as CSX and Union Pacific Railroad. STG’s bankruptcy was anticipated as the company faces multiple lawsuits and lacked the financial resiliency of larger intermodal competitors to navigate a freight recession approaching its fourth year. S&P Global, the parent company of the Journal of Commerce, lowered STG’s credit rating in July to CCC, warning that free cash flow would end 2025 at $110 million in the red and that STG could run out of money early this year. A CCC rating is considered speculative-grade credit with a high risk of default. STG hired Kirkland & Ellis and PJT Partners, firms known for bankruptcy filings, credit analysts at Octus reported last month. Lawsuits affected STG’s bankruptcy will impact two legal disputes involving the company. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin sued STG Logistics in December 2023 for worker misclassification, seeking back wages and penalties for more than 300 drivers. The lawsuit centers on the rules governing who qualifies as an employee versus an independent contractor. Like California’s AB5, New Jersey applies an “ABC test” that presumes employee status unless a company can satisfy three “prongs,” a high bar in drayage and trucking models. Those prongs are that the worker is free from the control of the hiring entity, that the work is performed outside the usual course of company business, and that the worker is engaged in an independently established trade or occupation. The New Jersey case would be frozen and transferred to the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy filing comes a week after a New York state judge allowed another lawsuit by minority lenders Axos Financial and Siemens Financial Services to move forward, according to The Wall Street Journal. Axos and Siemens were lenders in STG’s 2022 financing to acquire the intermodal division of XPO Logistics. In October 2024, STG announced a $300 million financing package, but Axos and Siemens later sued, alleging the deal also functioned as a liability-management transaction that shifted collateral and other protections toward new lenders, leaving them with weaker claims in bankruptcy. The October 2024 transaction included Antares, Fortress, and Invesco, according to the Journal. The New York judge described the Axos and Siemens allegations as “lender bullying,” the Journal reported. Axos and Siemens were not parties to the agreement filed with the court. The filing triggers an automatic stay to the New York case, pausing litigation against the debtor as the restructuring proceeds. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com

Intermodal providers

Surface

STG files Ch. 11 bankruptcy, but intermodal operations remain intact

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Most major carriers have set net-zero goals and are investing heavily in dual-fuel vessels that support their emissions-cutting strategies despite a lack of global regulatory support.</div>

Most major carriers have set net-zero goals and are investing heavily in dual-fuel vessels that support their emissions-cutting strategies despite a lack of global regulatory support.

<div class="phx-topic">Dual-fuel vessels capable of running on liquefied natural gas (LNG) continue to dominate the container shipping order book despite ongoing uncertainty around global emissions-cutting regulations.  While the overall newbuilding market across all shipping segments fell to 2,403 orders, down from 4,405 in 2024, in container shipping new orders rose from 447 in 2024 to 547 in 2025, accounting for 49% of all gross tonnage and 68% of alternative-fuel new orders, according to classification society DNV. “The resilience of the alternative fuels orderbook in 2025 is mainly driven by cargo owners who have set their own emissions reduction goals despite (the) market slowdown and regulatory uncertainty,” Jason Stefanatos, global decarbonization director at DNV, said in a market update Monday. "We see (ocean carriers) prioritizing investments where there is a strong alignment between fuel infrastructure, regulatory certainty and commercial viability, particularly in container shipping, where LNG and methanol are supported by established supply chains and customer demand,” he added. The chance for shipping to become the first global industry to implement emissions-reducing regulations was lost in October when <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/imo-punts-on-pivotal-net-zero-shipping-regulation-6099141">US-led opposition derailed the International Maritime Organization net-zero framework</a> at a pivotal Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting in London. The net-zero framework was postponed for at least a year, and possibly longer if the US continues to lobby against it. At issue is the price differential between conventional bunker fuels and greener fuels. A global price on emissions is key to narrowing the price gap, spurring demand and giving green fuel producers an incentive to invest in production. The MEPC will meet again this coming October, and although the delay may hurt the broader case for investment in the development of alternative fuels and related infrastructure, container carriers and shipowners remain firmly focused on LNG as the top green fuel of choice in newbuild vessel orders. Net-zero targets set by carriers Most of the major carriers in container shipping have set net-zero goals and are investing heavily in dual-fuel vessels that support their emissions-cutting strategies despite the regulatory uncertainty.  Data from Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, shows that just over 4 million TEUs of capacity for LNG dual-fuel ships was on order in 2025 compared to 2 million TEUs of methanol-capable vessels <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e8be4ac1-33cb-4758-93c4-1d0f92f52e7d"></dynamic-object></div>LNG as an interim alternative fuel solves multiple problems for container lines. It can reduce absolute carbon emissions by up to 20%, according to the American Bureau of Shipping, so progress toward decarbonization can be demonstrated to customers and the public. LNG is also more widely available than methanol, the supply of which is constrained and prices stubbornly high and will likely remain so due to IMO inaction on its zero-emissions framework. Maersk, for example, cited a lack of adequate supply when it <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/maersks-lng-order-hedges-bet-on-green-fuel-technology-ceo-5703200">pivoted from methanol to LNG in late 2024</a> for its next round of 50 to 60 vessels. DNV said in its market update that investment in fuel infrastructure was continuing at pace with 22 LNG bunker vessels added to the orderbook alongside new bunkering vessels capable of supplying methanol and biofuel. These developments signal growing confidence in LNG supply chains and emerging multi-fuel capabilities, reducing operational risk and supporting the economics of alternative fuel adoption. With the IMO delay in adopting global decarbonization measures throwing interim greenhouse gas emissions targets into doubt, improving the fuel efficiency of vessels has attained even greater importance, particularly in Europe. The EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) carbon tax and  Maritime fuel intensity regulations will come into full effect this year, and cutting vessel emissions will directly impact a carrier’s operating costs. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>.  </div>

Dual-fuel vessels capable of running on liquefied natural gas (LNG) continue to dominate the container shipping order book despite ongoing uncertainty around global emissions-cutting regulations.   While the overall newbuilding market across all shipping segments fell to 2,403 orders, down from 4,405 in 2024, in container shipping new orders rose from 447 in 2024 to 547 in 2025, accounting for 49% of all gross tonnage and 68% of alternative-fuel new orders, according to classification society DNV.  “The resilience of the alternative fuels orderbook in 2025 is mainly driven by cargo owners who have set their own emissions reduction goals despite (the) market slowdown and regulatory uncertainty,” Jason Stefanatos, global decarbonization director at DNV, said in a market update Monday.  "We see (ocean carriers) prioritizing investments where there is a strong alignment between fuel infrastructure, regulatory certainty and commercial viability, particularly in container shipping, where LNG and methanol are supported by established supply chains and customer demand,” he added.  The chance for shipping to become the first global industry to implement emissions-reducing regulations was lost in October when  US-led opposition derailed the International Maritime Organization net-zero framework  at a pivotal Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting in London. The net-zero framework was postponed for at least a year, and possibly longer if the US continues to lobby against it.  At issue is the price differential between conventional bunker fuels and greener fuels. A global price on emissions is key to narrowing the price gap, spurring demand and giving green fuel producers an incentive to invest in production.  The MEPC will meet again this coming October, and although the delay may hurt the broader case for investment in the development of alternative fuels and related infrastructure, container carriers and shipowners remain firmly focused on LNG as the top green fuel of choice in newbuild vessel orders.  Net-zero targets set by carriers  Most of the major carriers in container shipping have set net-zero goals and are investing heavily in dual-fuel vessels that support their emissions-cutting strategies despite the regulatory uncertainty.   Data from Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, shows that just over 4 million TEUs of capacity for LNG dual-fuel ships was on order in 2025 compared to 2 million TEUs of methanol-capable vessels  LNG as an interim alternative fuel solves multiple problems for container lines. It can reduce absolute carbon emissions by up to 20%, according to the American Bureau of Shipping, so progress toward decarbonization can be demonstrated to customers and the public. LNG is also more widely available than methanol, the supply of which is constrained and prices stubbornly high and will likely remain so due to IMO inaction on its zero-emissions framework. Maersk, for example, cited a lack of adequate supply when it  pivoted from methanol to LNG in late 2024  for its next round of 50 to 60 vessels.  DNV said in its market update that investment in fuel infrastructure was continuing at pace with 22 LNG bunker vessels added to the orderbook alongside new bunkering vessels capable of supplying methanol and biofuel. These developments signal growing confidence in LNG supply chains and emerging multi-fuel capabilities, reducing operational risk and supporting the economics of alternative fuel adoption.  With the IMO delay in adopting global decarbonization measures throwing interim greenhouse gas emissions targets into doubt, improving the fuel efficiency of vessels has attained even greater importance, particularly in Europe. The EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) carbon tax and  Maritime fuel intensity regulations will come into full effect this year, and cutting vessel emissions will directly impact a carrier’s operating costs.  Contact Greg Knowler at  greg.knowler@spglobal.com .   

Maritime

Solid growth evident in LNG order book despite regulatory uncertainty 

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The delays began last month after the railroad transitioned its Louisville ramp to grounded operations, but NS says it is taking steps to mitigate the backups.</div>

The delays began last month after the railroad transitioned its Louisville ramp to grounded operations, but NS says it is taking steps to mitigate the backups.

<div class="phx-topic">Truck drivers have been facing multi-hour delays when picking up ocean containers at Norfolk Southern’s Appliance Park terminal in Louisville, Ky. However, the railroad says conditions are expected to improve this week. To help ease the backups, Norfolk Southern (NS) opened a satellite lot early Monday at a nearby ContainerPort Group facility about nine miles away, according to a customer advisory issued Jan. 10. The delays at Appliance Park began after NS converted international intermodal operations at the Louisville terminal to grounded stacks in mid-December and began requiring appointments to pick up loads. It’s the latest in a series of conversions across the railroad’s network, including in Atlanta, Chicago and Memphis. “At the same time, we launched a major repaving project (in Louisville) to improve pad conditions and stacking efficiency, while expanding our overall international footprint,” an NS spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. “The holiday surge also contributed to the initial capacity influx, adding complexity to the transition.” Until last month, NS typically handled imports in Louisville using “wheeled” operations, in which ocean containers are placed on chassis and parked in designated spots. The shift to a grounded model, standard at most marine terminals, is intended to support long-term import growth. But the transition resulted in significant delays for truck drivers, often lasting several hours, particularly after the Christmas holiday. Drivers have been routed to staging areas inside the terminal and instructed to wait until directed to join long pickup lines. The Louisville terminal is a major inland hub for cargo moving through the Port of Virginia. <h3>Four-hour turn times </h3>An executive at a large drayage provider told the Journal of Commerce there were four-hour turn times and not enough lift machines in late December, and that conditions only worsened last week. “Trains are unable to get in; storage fees (are) still being charged; eight-hour turn times; lost containers,” the source wrote in a Jan. 10 message to the Journal of Commerce. NS said the satellite lot at the ContainerPort Group yard should quickly ease congestion at the main terminal. “We expect to reduce inventory at the main facility by approximately 50% and significantly cut driver dwell times,” the railroad said in its advisory. “As always, we will closely monitor performance throughout this process and pull additional levers to ensure long-term stability and support for this growing market.” Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Truck drivers have been facing multi-hour delays when picking up ocean containers at Norfolk Southern’s Appliance Park terminal in Louisville, Ky. However, the railroad says conditions are expected to improve this week. To help ease the backups, Norfolk Southern (NS) opened a satellite lot early Monday at a nearby ContainerPort Group facility about nine miles away, according to a customer advisory issued Jan. 10. The delays at Appliance Park began after NS converted international intermodal operations at the Louisville terminal to grounded stacks in mid-December and began requiring appointments to pick up loads. It’s the latest in a series of conversions across the railroad’s network, including in Atlanta, Chicago and Memphis. “At the same time, we launched a major repaving project (in Louisville) to improve pad conditions and stacking efficiency, while expanding our overall international footprint,” an NS spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. “The holiday surge also contributed to the initial capacity influx, adding complexity to the transition.” Until last month, NS typically handled imports in Louisville using “wheeled” operations, in which ocean containers are placed on chassis and parked in designated spots. The shift to a grounded model, standard at most marine terminals, is intended to support long-term import growth. But the transition resulted in significant delays for truck drivers, often lasting several hours, particularly after the Christmas holiday. Drivers have been routed to staging areas inside the terminal and instructed to wait until directed to join long pickup lines. The Louisville terminal is a major inland hub for cargo moving through the Port of Virginia. Four-hour turn times An executive at a large drayage provider told the Journal of Commerce there were four-hour turn times and not enough lift machines in late December, and that conditions only worsened last week. “Trains are unable to get in; storage fees (are) still being charged; eight-hour turn times; lost containers,” the source wrote in a Jan. 10 message to the Journal of Commerce. NS said the satellite lot at the ContainerPort Group yard should quickly ease congestion at the main terminal. “We expect to reduce inventory at the main facility by approximately 50% and significantly cut driver dwell times,” the railroad said in its advisory. “As always, we will closely monitor performance throughout this process and pull additional levers to ensure long-term stability and support for this growing market.” Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Rail News

North-American rail

Drivers battling delays at Norfolk Southern terminal in Louisville

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The reinstated service connecting the port with Colombia and the Dominican Republic will be supported by Savannah’s new customs facility that specializes in reefer cargoes. </div>

The reinstated service connecting the port with Colombia and the Dominican Republic will be supported by Savannah’s new customs facility that specializes in reefer cargoes.

<div class="phx-topic">Seaboard Marine is resuming a weekly service connecting the Port of Savannah to the Caribbean and South America. The service comes as Savannah prepares to open a new on-site customs facility intended to serve cold-chain shippers that are likely customers for the service. The Georgia Ports Authority (GPA) said Thursday that Seaboard has reinstated its direct, weekly shipping service between Savannah and the Colombian ports of Cartagena, Barranquilla and Santa Marta, along with Rio Haina in the Dominican Republic. The first Savannah call was on Jan. 7 by the 1,781-TEU Seaboard Gemini. The ship is expected to make its southbound sailing on Jan. 14, officially launching its schedule. “We are providing importers and exporters across the Southeast with improved transit times, greater schedule integrity, and the reliability they need to grow their businesses,” Piero Buitano, Seaboard’s senior vice president, said in a joint statement. Georgia Ports Chief Commercial Officer Flavio Batista said the service will offer cold-chain and transshipment options to and from the West Coast of South America. The service offers weekly Wednesday arrivals and departures in Savannah. The service will be supported by a US Customs exam site the GPA will open at its Garden City Terminal by the spring. The $44 million facility will offer on-terminal agricultural inspections in temperature-controlled environments, direct vessel discharge to inspection sites and multi-temperature zones designed for various produce types, allowing for 16 inspections per day, the GPA said. In 2025, Savannah handled 12,412 TEUs of imports from Colombia and the Dominicam Republic, a 21% drop from the year earlier, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Exports to the two countries out of Savannah totaled 10,923 TEUs through November 2025, PIERS data show, a 25% drop from the comparable 2024 period. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Seaboard Marine is resuming a weekly service connecting the Port of Savannah to the Caribbean and South America. The service comes as Savannah prepares to open a new on-site customs facility intended to serve cold-chain shippers that are likely customers for the service. The Georgia Ports Authority (GPA) said Thursday that Seaboard has reinstated its direct, weekly shipping service between Savannah and the Colombian ports of Cartagena, Barranquilla and Santa Marta, along with Rio Haina in the Dominican Republic. The first Savannah call was on Jan. 7 by the 1,781-TEU Seaboard Gemini. The ship is expected to make its southbound sailing on Jan. 14, officially launching its schedule. “We are providing importers and exporters across the Southeast with improved transit times, greater schedule integrity, and the reliability they need to grow their businesses,” Piero Buitano, Seaboard’s senior vice president, said in a joint statement. Georgia Ports Chief Commercial Officer Flavio Batista said the service will offer cold-chain and transshipment options to and from the West Coast of South America. The service offers weekly Wednesday arrivals and departures in Savannah. The service will be supported by a US Customs exam site the GPA will open at its Garden City Terminal by the spring. The $44 million facility will offer on-terminal agricultural inspections in temperature-controlled environments, direct vessel discharge to inspection sites and multi-temperature zones designed for various produce types, allowing for 16 inspections per day, the GPA said. In 2025, Savannah handled 12,412 TEUs of imports from Colombia and the Dominicam Republic, a 21% drop from the year earlier, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Exports to the two countries out of Savannah totaled 10,923 TEUs through November 2025, PIERS data show, a 25% drop from the comparable 2024 period. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Cool Cargo News

North American ports

Container lines

Seaboard restarts South America service calling at Savannah

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The commission’s review of an administrative law judge’s earlier decision on late fees that MSC charged for non-operating reefers found the overcharges amounted to a “practice” by the carrier.</div>

The commission’s review of an administrative law judge’s earlier decision on late fees that MSC charged for non-operating reefers found the overcharges amounted to a “practice” by the carrier.

<div class="phx-topic">The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) has increased the total civil penalty Mediterranean Shipping Co. will have to pay for overcharging late fees on non-operating reefer containers from $16 million to over $22 million. In changing the penalty, the FMC determined that the overcharges were too frequent and persistent to be considered a billing mistake. In an order issued this week, the FMC’s three sitting commissioners reversed part of an administrative law judge’s February 2025 decision stemming from an agency investigation into MSC’s detention and demurrage charges for non-operating reefers (NORs). The investigation found that during 2021, MSC sometimes charged shippers late fees on NORs at the higher rate of an operating reefer container. MSC’s tariff did not outline the late fees for NORs. But it had an unofficial policy of billing customers the same late fees as a standard dry container as NORs served the same purpose. MSC said the overcharges were the result of problems with its billing software, which didn’t distinguish between operating and non-operating reefers. MSC refunded $2 million to customers for the overcharges. While the administrative law judge ruled MSC’s tariff violated shipping law for not outlining late fees on NORs, the actual billing was a “mistake” and not a “practice” that would indicate a knowing violation of the law. The judge cited that only 23% of the NOR invoices in 2021 had the overcharges and did not assess a penalty for the overcharges. However, the commissioners sided with the agency’s enforcement arm that the prevalence of overcharges, which occurred 2,629 times, did constitute a practice, even if they weren’t a willful violation of shipping law. The FMC’s decision said the overcharges occurred 10 times per day for more than eight months. “Even if mainly an unintentional result of a billing system error, the thousands of overcharges were too numerous and frequent to be considered anything but a practice,” the FMC said. “They were unreasonable charges for NORs, which do not require the enhanced care operating reefers do.” MSC was not immediately available for comment. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) has increased the total civil penalty Mediterranean Shipping Co. will have to pay for overcharging late fees on non-operating reefer containers from $16 million to over $22 million. In changing the penalty, the FMC determined that the overcharges were too frequent and persistent to be considered a billing mistake. In an order issued this week, the FMC’s three sitting commissioners reversed part of an administrative law judge’s February 2025 decision stemming from an agency investigation into MSC’s detention and demurrage charges for non-operating reefers (NORs). The investigation found that during 2021, MSC sometimes charged shippers late fees on NORs at the higher rate of an operating reefer container. MSC’s tariff did not outline the late fees for NORs. But it had an unofficial policy of billing customers the same late fees as a standard dry container as NORs served the same purpose. MSC said the overcharges were the result of problems with its billing software, which didn’t distinguish between operating and non-operating reefers. MSC refunded $2 million to customers for the overcharges. While the administrative law judge ruled MSC’s tariff violated shipping law for not outlining late fees on NORs, the actual billing was a “mistake” and not a “practice” that would indicate a knowing violation of the law. The judge cited that only 23% of the NOR invoices in 2021 had the overcharges and did not assess a penalty for the overcharges. However, the commissioners sided with the agency’s enforcement arm that the prevalence of overcharges, which occurred 2,629 times, did constitute a practice, even if they weren’t a willful violation of shipping law. The FMC’s decision said the overcharges occurred 10 times per day for more than eight months. “Even if mainly an unintentional result of a billing system error, the thousands of overcharges were too numerous and frequent to be considered anything but a practice,” the FMC said. “They were unreasonable charges for NORs, which do not require the enhanced care operating reefers do.” MSC was not immediately available for comment. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

FMC raises fine on MSC in case over non-operating reefers

Use code GTW595 at checkout and save $900 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 NYW26 at checkout to save 25% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

NEW YEAR SALE

Use code NYW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid for first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

Subscribe today using code NYW26 at checkout and save 25% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

Use code NYW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

Get into a Gold subscription today and save $500 by using code NYW995 at checkout!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

NEW YEAR SALE: Use code NYW26 to save 25% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

NEW YEAR SALE: Subscribe today using code NYW26 at checkout and save 25% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTW595 at checkout and save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

NEW YEAR SALE: Get into a Gold subscription today and save $500 by using code NYW995 at checkout!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

NEW YEAR SALE: Use code NYW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid on first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

NEW YEAR SALE: Use code NYW995 at checkout to save $500 on a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

The premier conference for the global container shipping and supply chain community

TPM Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend TPM26

The only editorially independent conference for the breakbulk & project cargo industry

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

The latest container shipping news and analysis of ocean container shipping, logistics, supply chains, technology solutions and end-to-end connectivity. Coverage includes the movement of containerized cargo handled by marine terminals and container ports, depots, container lines, drayage, consignees, importers and shippers, forwarders, non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOs) and off-dock warehousing providers. The Journal of Commerce's container shipping news includes news from the trans-Pacific, Asia–Europe, North America–Caribbean, Central and South America trades, and intra-Asia trades.

Trans-Atlantic

Forwarding

Asia-Europe

Trans-Pacific

Container shipping news and analysis of ocean container shipping, logistics, supply chains, technology and end-to-end connectivity.

Container Shipping News | Journal of Commerce

The Journal of Commerce is the industry’s source for maritime news and analysis about ocean container shipping, logistics, supply chains, global shipping ports, shipping technology solutions and end-to-end connectivity. Coverage tracks the movement of containerized cargo — from origin to destination — handled by marine terminals in the US and abroad, depots, container ports, container lines, drayage, consignees and shippers, forwarders, non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOs) and off-dock warehousing providers, as well as pricing, capacity, volume and reliability on the trans-Pacific, Asia–Europe, North America–Caribbean, Central and South American and intra-Asia trades.

Discover comprehensive trucking news and trends with Journal of Commerce - from trucking LTL to regulation and trucking supply and demand.

Breakbulk News shipping | Journal of Commerce

Breakbulk News

Stay informed on port news worldwide with Journal of Commerce. From decarbonization to labor updates, get insights on global developments.

Port News | Journal of Commerce

Port News

News and analysis of ocean containerized cargo movement, logistics, supply chains, technology, and end-to-end connectivity. Maritime news and analysis of containerized ocean cargo movement, breakbulk and roll-on and roll-off shipping from origin to destination.

Latest News

More News & Analysis

STG files Ch. 11 bankruptcy, but intermodal operations remain intact

Solid growth evident in LNG order book despite regulatory uncertainty

Drivers battling delays at Norfolk Southern terminal in Louisville