Could we follow California, make shippers pay up?

Two years ago, state Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen put her hand in a hornet nest.

In response to requests for transportation improvements in and around the ports of Tacoma and Seattle, the Senate Transportation Committee chairwoman suggested imposing a $100 fee on each 40-foot shipping container loaded and unloaded.

The alternatives were to increase gas taxes or to allow congestion to slow the movement of goods.

The reaction was loud and harsh. Such a fee would damage our “economic engine,” diverting cargo to California ports, critics said.

Sometime next month, however, the California Legislature is likely to pass a bill that would place a $60 fee on each commonly sized container passing through three of its largest ports. The money would help pay for projects to reduce the air pollution generated by the ports and to ease rail and road congestion.

A similar bill was vetoed two years ago by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. But supporters think the governor will sign the bill this time, partly because opponents didn’t suggest other ways to pay for the fixes.

The state fee will be on top of $200 in typical container fees already imposed by the ports themselves and by other entities for pollution and congestion-relief projects.

Opposition in California was led by retail associations and companies such as Wal-Mart and Target, which claim it will increase the cost of goods. Such state fees, opponents say, might also violate the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says Congress regulates trade.

The prime sponsor of the bill is Alan Lowenthal, whose district includes the massive port of Long Beach. He argued that the cost of fixing pollution and congestion problems should be borne by the customers, not by the people who live around the ports.

Haugen agreed.

“The Port of Seattle is really the Port of Chicago,” she said. “Why should people in the state of Washington be taxed for stuff going to Illinois?”

California is the alpha dog in West Coast shipping. While Tacoma and Seattle move about 4 million 20-foot equivalent containers between them, Long Beach and Los Angeles move about 15.7 million each year. If the bill passes and if Schwarzenegger signs it, Washington ports can no longer claim they will be at a competitive disadvantage to California.

They can still use British Columbia as the boogie man, just as opponents in California used Mexican ports. And Alaska will complain because nearly everything that state uses comes via containers from Washington ports.

But eventually congestion and pollution will have to be addressed in Washington state, and someone will have to pay for it. Needed freight mobility projects far exceed the money available. And the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency says one-third of diesel emissions are due to port activities.

Pat Jones, executive director of the Washington Public Ports Association, said port commissioners are serving on a special state committee looking at the issues.

They are worried, however, that container fees will make state ports less competitive and that such fees treat international freight differently than domestic cargo even though both use trucks and trains.

Haugen said she’ll be interested to see if container traffic is, indeed, diverted to Washington if the California bill is signed.

“If it does, it will only make our problems worse, quicker,” she said.

A study of diversion in California predicted that it will not happen to any noticeable degree. But studies of the effects of a tax in Washington predict severe cargo and job losses.

Haugen has told the industry she’s open to other ideas.

“They’ve been really good at stalling,” she said of the ports and shippers. “Maybe this will put the pressure on them.”

Peter Callaghan: 253-597-8657

peter.callaghan@thenewstribune.com

blogs.thenewstribune.com/politics