Divergent Costs & Growth Lessons from Californias Intermodal - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

divergent costs growth
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Divergent Costs & Growth Lessons from Californias Intermodal - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Divergent Costs & Growth Lessons from Californias Intermodal Seaports Energy Foundation China Webinar January 22, 2018 Mike Jacob Vice President & General Counsel Oakland, CA U.S. Seaport Infrastructure Requires Local,


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Divergent Costs & Growth

Lessons from California’s Intermodal Seaports

Energy Foundation China – Webinar January 22, 2018

Mike Jacob Vice President & General Counsel Oakland, CA

slide-2
SLIDE 2

U.S. Seaport Infrastructure Requires Local, State, Private Financing

  • There is no substantial central government

funding sources for Intermodal Facilities in the United States. State and local ports, private marine terminals, and railroads directly fund/finance trade infrastructure.

  • Exception: truck user fees/taxes which are

collected nationally for highways.

  • Public or private, nearly all non-highway &

non-transit infrastructure is financed on revenues and volume growth projections. 2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

States, Local Governments and Business Invest in Ports: Jobs, economic benefits, and tax revenues grow along with volumes

  • Marine Terminal Operations at the Port of LA in

2007 yielded an average of $240.42 per container in State and Local tax revenues, $2,127.67 in personal income per container, and 0.23 jobs per container.

  • Marine Terminal Operations at the Port of

Oakland in 2010 yielded an average of $180.22 in State and Local Taxes per container, $1,716.56 in personal income per container, and 0.37 jobs per container.

slide-4
SLIDE 4

States & Local Governments Rely on Growth for Intermodal Seaports’ Success:

  • Supports existing Port and Intermodal

Facility Financing

  • Grows jobs, economic benefits, and tax

revenues along with volumes

  • Pays for Environmental and other costs

which are in excess of original financing baselines or expectations

  • Lowers Average Cost & Marginal Cost for

Cargo Owners per box

  • Leads to Virtuous Cycle of Re-investment

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

What California Growth Looked Like to Transportation Planners, Air Quality Regulators, and Underwriters:

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9

slide-10
SLIDE 10
slide-11
SLIDE 11

11

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

slide-14
SLIDE 14

What California Growth Looked Like to Transportation Planners, Air Quality Regulators, and Underwriters:

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15
slide-16
SLIDE 16

16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

17

slide-18
SLIDE 18
slide-19
SLIDE 19
slide-20
SLIDE 20

20

slide-21
SLIDE 21

21

slide-22
SLIDE 22
slide-23
SLIDE 23

New Outstanding Costs on the Horizon Are Immense – State and Ports of LA/LB

  • LA/LB Clean Air Action

Plan (CAAP) Update: New goals: 100% ZE CHE in 2030 100% ZE trucks in 2035 Estimated costs*: Up to $14 billion (LA/LB)

Up to $32 billion (M&N)

  • CARB Reg Amends:

Ships At-Berth: Every vessel/Every visit/ Every port CHE: 100% ZE by 2030

  • SLC Reg Amends:

Ballast Water: 100% exchange, $100k / call

23

slide-24
SLIDE 24

California’s Average Cost Equation

Base Supply Chain Costs + California Only Costs Container Volumes

  • Unique concentration of “California Only Costs”

Drive up the Numerator

  • Container Diversion Reduces the Denominator.
  • Result: Average Cost per Box Increases

Demand for California Intermodal Service

  • Opposite of the Virtuous Cycle of Reinvestment

Relative to Competitors and Volumes Go Down

  • Financing New Infrastructure and New

Environmental Upgrades Gets More Difficult

24

AC =

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Without growth in volumes it is hard to reinvest in new, more expensive ports.

25

  • Current Challenge: Lower cargo volumes than

anticipated by private sector underwriting the existing infrastructure, and with higher environmental/equipment costs, leads to losses.

  • Future Challenge: Underwriting even greater levels
  • f capital for new environmental

infrastructure/equipment costs that are not associated with new revenue streams.

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Dedicate Public Investment to Trade Infrastructure Which Incentivizes More Efficient ZE Port Operations

  • Challenge: Limited new private revenues to

finance the development of new infrastructure and equipment with lower container volumes, and with higher per unit operating costs.

  • Answer: Use Public Subsidies for Financing.

Encourage greater, accelerated adoption of Economies of Scale at Ports by Making Marine Terminals More Efficient and Denser Operations

  • Lower Operating Costs per Container per Acre is

the Only Currently Available ZE Path Forward

slide-27
SLIDE 27
slide-28
SLIDE 28

Freight Policy Can Yield Greater Investments in a Low Growth Market, If Incentives Support Port Efficiency

  • Integrate growth and financing goals with air

quality-friendly infrastructure so the investments themselves align economic and environmental goals with higher volumes

  • Prioritize public subsidies & incentive funding

for new infrastructure and environmental mitigation programs without imposition of new regulatory mandates or facility caps

  • Incentivize MTOs with Public Funds to Meet

Long-term 2050 Zero-Emissions Goals

slide-29
SLIDE 29

www.pmsaship.com

Oakland, CA Long Beach, CA Seattle, WA