Every Emergency Fuel Surcharge Now Hitting Transpacific Lanes, Broken Down

In the two weeks since global fuel markets reopened on March 2, every major carrier on the Transpacific has filed some version of an emergency fuel surcharge. The filings started coming in within days of each other, and they are not all structured the same way. Some are flat per-TEU charges, some vary by equipment type and routing mode, and at least one carrier has layered a GRI on top. If you are booking cargo from Asia to the U.S. or Canada right now, here is exactly what each carrier has filed and when it takes effect.

Why Carriers Are Filing Now

The trigger is the Strait of Hormuz closure. Bunker fuel prices spiked sharply after global fuel markets reopened on March 2 following geopolitical escalation in the Middle East. Carriers have existing bunker adjustment frameworks built into their tariffs. Still, those formulas were calibrated for normal market fluctuations, not a sudden 30-plus percent jump in fuel procurement costs across multiple regions simultaneously. The emergency surcharges are what carriers use when the math on their standard bunker recovery mechanism stops working.

It is also worth understanding the regulatory mechanics. Surcharges on U.S.-regulated trades have to be filed with the Federal Maritime Commission, which requires a statutory notice period before they can take effect. That is why you are seeing split effective dates on most of these filings, with Canada and non-FMC trades going live two to three weeks earlier than U.S. trades. The underlying charge is the same; the timing difference is a regulatory requirement, not a commercial one.

The Filings, Carrier by Carrier

CMA CGM filed an Emergency Fuel Surcharge on March 13, covering all Asian origin ports, including Far East, Southeast Asia, Bangladesh, and the Indian Subcontinent, to Canada and the U.S. The rate is $150 per 20-foot dry container and $300 per 40-foot or 40-foot high-cube, with reefer equipment at $180 and $360, respectively. Canada destinations go live on March 23. U.S. East Coast, Gulf, and West Coast destinations follow on April 8.

Ocean Network Express filed its Emergency Fuel Surcharge on March 10, with a structure based on voyage type rather than specific lanes. On all long-haul head-haul moves, the charge is $160 per TEU for dry cargo and $210 for reefer. Back-haul and short-sea moves are charged at $80 and $105. The non-FMC effective date is March 24, with FMC-regulated U.S. and Canada trades following on April 9. ONE has also published a full appendix breaking down the charge by trade and direction, which is worth reviewing if you have IPI or inland point intermodal moves, as those carry a higher rate of $320 per TEU dry.

Hapag-Lloyd filed an Emergency Bunker Surcharge on March 13 covering non-China origin cargo from Asia to the U.S. and Canada. The rate is $160 per 20-foot and $320 per 40-foot for dry cargo, with reefer at $225 per 20-foot and $450 per 40-foot. The non-China-to-U.S. lanes go live on April 8; the non-China-to-Canada lanes were effective on March 23.

Yang Ming's Emergency Bunker Surcharge is $185 per 20-foot container, $370 per 40-foot container, and $370 per 40-foot high-cube container on Asia-to-U.S. and Asia-to-Canada lanes, with reefer at $532 per 40-foot container. Effective date is April 13. Note that Yang Ming has not included a 45-foot rate in its filing.

SM Line introduced what it is calling an Emergency Fuel Adjustment Factor, effective April 12. The charge applies to all cargo under SM Line's service contracts and tariffs, except for cargo originating in China. On the eastbound, port delivery mode is $232 per 20-foot, $273 per 40-foot, $307 per 40-foot high-cube or reefer 40-foot, and $346 per 45-foot. IPI and MLB moves are higher, at $402 per 20-foot container and up to $599 per 45-foot container. SM Line is explicit that the EFF is designed to offset bunker cost increases not already covered under its New Bunker Charge framework.

ZIM filed under the designation New Bunker Fee and the rates are noticeably higher than the rest of the market, particularly on East Coast lanes. Asia to the U.S. East Coast is $965 per 20-foot container and $1,072 per 40-foot container, rising to $1,357 per 45-foot container and $1,608 per reefer container. Asia to the West Coast, including Canada, is $724 per 20-foot container and $804 per 40-foot container. The West Coast filing was effective March 15; the East Coast goes live April 4. ZIM's NBF structure sits well above the other carriers' filings and will have a disproportionate impact on shippers with ZIM contracts.

MSC has not filed a standalone fuel surcharge but has filed a General Rate Increase effective April 9. On Asia-to-West-Coast lanes, including Canada, the GRI is $136 per 20-foot container and $272 per 40-foot container, with reefer at $204 and $408. On Asia-to-East-Coast lanes, including Canada, the rates are $215 per 20-foot container and $430 per 40-foot container, with reefer at $322 and $644. COSCO has indicated a filing is forthcoming, but has not yet published specific rates.

What This Means in Practice

The first thing to check is your contract language. Most ocean service contracts contain provisions that allow carriers to apply accessorial charges, including fuel surcharges, even on fixed-rate agreements. Whether the emergency surcharge is subject to that carve-out depends on how your specific contract is worded. If you are not sure, now is the time to pull the document and read the tariff incorporation clauses.

The second thing to understand is how these charges stack. If you are moving a 40-foot container from Southeast Asia to the U.S. East Coast on a carrier with an emergency fuel surcharge, you could pay $300 to $1,072 in new charges per box, depending on the carrier, before you factor in whether a GRI also applies. On a shipment of 20 containers, that is $6,000 to $21,000 in additional costs that were not in your freight budget two weeks ago. Across a full import program, the landed cost impact is material.

IPI and inland point intermodal moves are worth special attention. Several carriers, including ONE and SM Line, have filed higher surcharge rates for IPI routing compared to port or local delivery. If you are currently routing through an inland rail point to avoid port congestion or reduce drayage costs, you may want to run the numbers again to see whether port delivery has become the more cost-effective option under the new surcharge structure.

How ShipTech Is Helping Clients Navigate This

We have pulled every carrier filing and are maintaining a running tracker of effective dates, rates by equipment type, and applicability by lane and origin. For clients with multi-carrier programs, we can model the total surcharge exposure across your booking mix, so you have a clear picture of what the next 60 days look like on your freight spend. If there is room to renegotiate or if routing changes could reduce exposure without disrupting your supply chain, we will flag those options with the underlying numbers so you can decide.

If you have questions about a specific carrier filing or want to know how your current contracts interact with these surcharges, reach out to your ShipTech account manager directly.