Bill Overview
Title: Port Cranes for America Act
Description: This bill requires the U.S. Maritime Administration to provide grants to eligible applicants for the procurement of container cranes with a lifting capacity in excess of 50 tons for use at ports located in the United States. The funds may be used to procure such a crane, including to pay for any manufacturing costs associated with the procurement, provided that the entity manufacturing the crane is not associated with a country that is a nonmarket economy, fails to protect intellectual property rights, and violates foreign trade agreements. For cranes in use before this bill's enactment, funds may also be used to replace any software from such a country.
Sponsors: Rep. Gimenez, Carlos A. [R-FL-26]
Target Audience
Population: People impacted by global trade and shipping efficiencies through US ports
Estimated Size: 331000000
- The bill targets port infrastructure, specifically focusing on cranes.
- Container cranes are critical for port operations and impact trade and shipping.
- Ports are a key part of the national supply chain.
- Modern container cranes can increase the efficiency of port operations.
Reasoning
- The port infrastructure policy mainly affects those directly involved in port operations, such as dock workers and logistics managers.
- Indirect benefits could accrue to consumers and businesses due to improved supply chain efficiencies.
- Given the large budget spread over ten years, immediate noticeable impact might be limited to port workers, while broader effects on consumers might take longer.
- The policy does not directly provide consumer goods or alter daily living standards, so the incremental well-being impact may not be high.
Simulated Interviews
Port Crane Operator (Long Beach, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new cranes will make my job easier and safer.
- I support the bill because it could mean more job security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Logistics Coordinator (Newark, NJ)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The efficiency could improve shipping times which is important for my job.
- I believe it can help reduce costs for our company over time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Port Manager (Savannah, GA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The modernization will lead to competitive advantages for our port.
- An increase in operational efficiency is vital to handle growing shipping demands.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Environmental Policy Analyst (Seattle, WA)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My concern is about the environmental footprint of such heavy infrastructure.
- It's positive if it leads to more efficient, less-emission port operations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Small Business Owner (Houston, TX)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the policy reduces shipping delays, it will have a positive impact on my business.
- Efficient ports are crucial for our operation, vital to consider in our business plans.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired Steelworker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I won't directly benefit, efficient ports may keep import prices stable.
- Hope it aligns with reducing emissions from shipping.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Customs Officer (Miami, FL)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More cranes could improve the flow of goods which makes my job easier.
- Efficient ports are key to national trade security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Economist (Mobile, AL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy has potential for substantial economic benefits through improved trade efficiency.
- Long-term, it could bolster competitive position of US ports.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Software Developer (Charleston, SC)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Replacing software from nonmarket economies is crucial for security.
- Cranes with better tech can improve efficiency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired Professor (Portland, OR)
Age: 72 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The bill is a good step towards upgrading aging infrastructure.
- It's essential for the US to remain competitive in global trade.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $500000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $600000000)
Year 3: $500000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $600000000)
Year 5: $500000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $600000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Manufacturing restrictions could impact options and increase costs.
- Implementation requires collaboration with various stakeholders, including port authorities and crane manufacturers.
- Sourcing restrictions may present logistical and economic challenges depending on the availability of compliant manufacturers.