Maersk released an official announcement on May 28 stating that multiple new terminal charges will be applied to goods imported into the United States and Canada starting from July 1 2026.

The latest charge schedule features a notable adjustment in pricing model. Previously bundled under the unified terminal handling charge THC package various fee items including terminal loading and unloading fees port security fees New York and New Jersey port facility fees and energy transition fees applicable to Canadian ports operated by DP World have now been split and listed separately.

Significant price differentials exist in terminal handling fees across US ports. The fee is set at 85 US dollars per container for Houston and New Orleans ports 65 US dollars per container for Miami Tampa and Mobile ports and 75 US dollars per container for Everglades Port creating a 20 US dollar price gap between different US port locations. Port security fees are standardized at 15 US dollars for US ports and 12 US dollars for Canadian ports. An exclusive port facility fee of 15 US dollars per TEU is levied for the New York and New Jersey Port. Notably a brand new energy transition fee of 15 US dollars per TEU will be charged at four DP World operated Canadian terminals namely Prince Rupert Port Vancouver Centerm Fraser Surrey and Saint John Port marking the first launch of such a fee category among major shipping lines.

Freight forwarding industry insiders revealed that most of the newly separated charges were previously included in the overall THC quotation and only a bundled total price was presented to customers. The split pricing model does not necessarily increase the overall cost for shippers but greatly changes the cost perception. The previous flat all inclusive price has been replaced by a detailed itemized charge list. The core essence of this adjustment is to eliminate cross subsidy in port pricing. In the past cost differences between high cost ports like Houston and low cost ports like Miami were averaged and shared by all shippers. Under the new pricing rule shippers using specific ports will independently bear the corresponding port fees. Previously internal settlement fees for New York and New Jersey Port facilities and energy transformation investment costs of DP World Canadian terminals embedded in equipment depreciation are now directly passed down to downstream clients in a transparent manner.

Maersk’s pricing adjustment is driven by clear commercial logic. In recent years mainstream terminal operators have continuously raised service fees due to massive capital investment in port decarbonization transformation automated operational upgrades shore power system construction and port security enhancement. Leading terminal operators including DP World and APM Terminals have transferred operational cost pressures to shipping companies forcing carriers to pass on relevant expenses to downstream customers. The itemized split pricing model enables accurate differentiated pricing eliminating cross subsidy between different ports and routes and realizing a one port one price mechanism where users bear the exact costs of the terminals they utilize.

Although the newly introduced energy transition fee of 15 US dollars per TEU is low in amount it represents a critical industry shift. Green transformation costs that were previously digested internally by port and shipping enterprises are now explicitly listed as independent charges. This new fee category is highly likely to be widely replicated across the industry. A long standing rule in the shipping sector is that any new surcharge accepted by the market will be rapidly adopted by other shipping lines and port operators within 6 to 12 months. European ports have already initiated discussions on similar green infrastructure fees while major west coast US ports are also expected to launch comparable charging standards in the near future.

The new pricing policy will bring three key practical impacts on Chinese export enterprises.

First the cost structure of destination port charges has undergone major changes. Under FOB trade terms the buyer is responsible for destination port fees while sellers may face unexpected additional charges under CIF terms. Enterprises are advised to clearly specify the bearing party of all newly added surcharges in trade contracts to avoid cost disputes.

Second enterprises need to reassess their port selection strategies. The 20 US dollar per container price gap between Houston and Miami ports will generate substantial cost differences for large scale exporters. For enterprises with an annual shipment volume of over 10000 TEU the annual cost fluctuation can reach hundreds of thousands of US dollars.

Third the long term upward trend of green energy transition fees should be incorporated into enterprise cost accounting models in advance to achieve scientific cost prediction and risk control.

Following Maersk’s lead the majority of shipping lines are expected to adopt the same itemized split terminal charging model within the next 12 months. This industry wide adjustment is not a voluntary choice of shipping companies but a passive response to the continuous cost pressure from global terminal operators.