Port Pension and OPEB Liabilities: Credit Risk for Revenue Bondholders

Port Pension and OPEB Liabilities: Credit Risk for Revenue Bondholders

Pension and other post-employment benefit (OPEB) liabilities represent a growing credit burden for U.S. port authorities, yet they remain systematically underappreciated by many revenue bondholders. Unlike airports, which typically participate in state pension systems, ports operate under diverse governance models that create varied pension exposures: state plan participation, independent defined-benefit plans, and union-controlled multiemployer arrangements. This fragmentation complicates credit analysis but does not diminish the risks. Rating agencies now explicitly adjust leverage calculations for pension burdens, and unfunded liabilities can significantly erode financial flexibility during downturns. This article explains how port pension and OPEB liabilities are structured, measured, and evaluated by credit analysts.

Disclaimer: AI-generated, not investment/financial/legal advice.

Changelog
2026-02-23 — Initial publication.

Introduction: Why Pension Risk Matters for Port Bonds

Pension and OPEB liabilities are "below-the-line" operating costs that became "above-the-line" balance sheet items between 2015 and 2018, when the Governmental Accounting Standards Board issued GASB 68 (Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions) and GASB 75 (Accounting and Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefits Other Than Pensions). For port authorities, this transition revealed the true scale of long-term benefit obligations: many ports discovered they were carrying net pension liabilities (NPL) ranging from 50 million to over 500 million dollars on their balance sheets.

Why does this matter to bondholders? Revenue bonds are rated and priced based on net revenue coverage of debt service. A large unfunded pension liability reduces future net revenues available for debt service because pension contributions consume operating cash. Additionally, pension liabilities effectively increase a port's leverage ratio — rating agencies add the full net pension liability to debt calculations when assessing leverage. A port with $500 million in outstanding debt and a $300 million net pension liability effectively carries $800 million in obligations competing for operating revenue.

During periods of cargo slowdown (2020 COVID collapse, 2023 trans-Atlantic shift), ports with large pension burdens experience disproportionate credit stress because pension contribution requirements do not decline with revenue. This "fixed floor" of pension costs can squeeze discretionary capital spending and reserve buildout at precisely the moment when financial flexibility is most valuable.

GASB Framework: GASB 68 and GASB 75

Two accounting standards define how U.S. public entities report pension and OPEB liabilities:

GASB 68 (Pensions) — Effective FY2015

GASB 68 requires state and local entities to record a Net Pension Liability (NPL) on the balance sheet, representing the entity's proportionate share of the pension plan's unfunded liability. The standard distinguishes between two measurement approaches:

For defined-benefit plans where the entity is a member: The entity records the Plan's total NPL × (Entity's contribution percentage ÷ Total contributions) = Entity's proportionate NPL. This is the case for most ports participating in state pension systems (CalPERS for California ports, state plans for others).

For single-employer plans (less common for ports): The entity records 100% of the plan's unfunded liability on its balance sheet.

The NPL is calculated by actuaries as: Total Pension Liability (what the plan owes in benefits) − Plan assets (investments) = NPL. A 70% funded ratio means the plan's assets cover 70% of liabilities, leaving a 30% shortfall that appears as NPL on the sponsoring entity's balance sheet.

GASB 68 also introduced "pension expense," which differs from cash contributions. Pension expense includes service cost (accrual of new benefits), interest on the liability, investment returns (actual vs. expected), and actuarial gains/losses. A port might contribute $50 million in cash but recognize $65 million in pension expense, reflecting liability growth. Conversely, a strong investment year might lower pension expense below contributions.

GASB 75 (OPEB) — Effective FY2018

GASB 75 applies the same balance sheet recognition principle to other post-employment benefits: retiree healthcare, life insurance, and dental/vision coverage. For ports, OPEB liabilities often exceed pension liabilities because:

• Medical inflation is volatile — healthcare costs rise 4–6% annually, compounded over retirees' lifespans (often 20–30 years post-retirement).
• Few ports prefund OPEB — most pay-as-you-go, meaning the full liability sits on the balance sheet, unfunded.
• Survivor benefits are underestimated — when a retiree spouse outlives the retiree, the port continues to pay premiums, creating tail liabilities.

Unlike pensions, which are governed by ERISA and have legal funding requirements, OPEB has no federal funding mandate. A port can, legally, accumulate a $100 million unfunded OPEB liability indefinitely, paying claims year-to-year. However, GASB 75 makes this liability visible, and rating agencies now treat OPEB as a claim on operating cash, depressing financial flexibility.

The NPL vs. Contribution Gap

A critical point for bondholders: the Net Pension Liability on the ACFR balance sheet does not equal the true unfunded liability. Example:

• Port of Sacramento (fictional): CalPERS plan funded ratio = 75%.
• Actual unfunded liability (actuarial) = $200 million.
• Port's proportionate share = 8% (Port's payroll ÷ CalPERS total payroll).
• Port's GASB 68 Net Pension Liability = $16 million.
• Port's actual cash obligation = $30 million/year in contributions (now higher, because plan is underfunded).

The GASB NPL appears small relative to the true unfunded liability. But the cash obligation — $30 million/year — is what matters for cash flow and debt service coverage. Investors should focus on the contribution rate trajectory, not just the reported NPL.

Port Pension Structures

U.S. ports participate in three main pension arrangements:

1. State Public Employee Pension Systems (Most Common)

The majority of port authority employees — administrative, finance, IT, operations — participate in statewide public pension plans:

• California ports (POLA, POLB, Port of Oakland, Port of Tacoma, Port of Seattle): CalPERS (California Public Employees' Retirement System). Funded ratio ~73% as of 2024.
• Texas ports (Port Houston): Employee Retirement System of Texas (ERS). Funded ratio ~87% as of 2024.
• Georgia ports (GPA): Technical College System of Georgia plan. Separate analysis needed.
• New York/New Jersey (PANYNJ): New York City Employees' Retirement System + New Jersey public pension systems. Complex multi-jurisdiction coverage.
• Florida ports (PortMiami, Port Everglades): Florida Retirement System (FRS). Funded ratio ~81% as of 2024.

Advantage: The port's pension expense is a small proportion of the total plan's unfunded liability, because the port's payroll is a tiny fraction of the system's total covered payroll. CalPERS serves 3,000+ employers; Port of Oakland's proportionate share is <1%.

Disadvantage: The port has no control over investment strategy, actuarial assumptions, or contribution rates. When CalPERS has a bad investment year, all California public entities see contribution spikes. A port may face a 50% increase in required contributions without any ability to negotiate or control it.

2. Independent Defined-Benefit Plans (Rare for Ports)

A few larger ports (or port consortiums) sponsor their own pension plans. Examples:

• Port of Seattle: Some legacy employees in the Port of Seattle Employees' Pension Plan, though most are in state systems.
• SCPA (South Carolina Ports Authority): Operates a supplemental plan alongside state participation.

Advantage: Full control over investment strategy and actuarial assumptions. A well-managed plan can reduce contribution volatility.

Disadvantage: The port is 100% liable for unfunded liability. If the plan is 70% funded, the full unfunded amount sits on the port's balance sheet, creating a leverage problem. Additionally, the port must hire actuaries, compliance staff, and benefit administrators, increasing administrative costs.

3. Union-Controlled Multiemployer Pension Plans (Longshoremen)

This is the unique and problematic structure for many larger U.S. ports. Unlike administrative staff, longshoremen (ILWU on the West Coast, ILA on the East Coast) participate in multiemployer plans controlled by union leadership and terminal operators, NOT the port authority. This creates significant credit risks detailed in the next section.

Longshoremen (ILWU/ILA) Pension Plans

The pension obligations for longshoremen represent the largest single source of port pension risk, despite not appearing on port balance sheets in full.

ILWU Pension Plan (West Coast)

The International Longshoremen and Warehousemen's Union (ILWU) administers the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) Pension Trust. This plan covers longshoremen at all West Coast ports (POLA, POLB, Port of Oakland, Port of Seattle, Port of Tacoma, others).

How contributions work: Terminal operators (who lease from ports) contribute per labor hour worked. Ports do not directly contribute to the ILWU pension. However, ports are economically exposed because if the ILWU pension becomes underfunded, the union will push for higher labor costs, cutting into port competitiveness and cargo volumes.

Current status (as of 2024): The ILWU pension is approximately 84–86% funded, with assets around $8.5 billion and liabilities around $10 billion. The plan has benefited from strong investment returns and defined-benefit freezes (no new service credits for new hires since 2002).

Withdrawal liability risk: This is the critical credit concern. The Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA) of 1980 requires an employer that exits a multiemployer plan to pay a "withdrawal liability" equal to its proportionate share of the plan's unfunded liability. For ports, withdrawal occurs when labor hours decline significantly (e.g., due to automation, terminal closure, or consolidation).

Example scenario: Port of Oakland automates its cargo handling, reducing longshoremen hours by 60%. The PMA pension's unfunded liability is $2 billion. Port of Oakland's proportionate share of those hours (say 12%) implies an $800 million withdrawal liability. The port would be required to remit this amount to the pension plan within 10 years, on top of ongoing operating costs. This liability is contingent but not recorded under GASB 68 (because it only applies to withdrawal events).

Rating agency treatment: Moody's, S&P, and Fitch all monitor multiemployer pension withdrawal liability as a credit risk. They may add a notional withdrawal liability to a port's effective debt load when stress-testing the credit. For POLA and POLB (which handle ~20% of West Coast container volume), a withdrawal liability could reach $300–500 million.

ILA Pension Plans (East Coast)

The International Longshoremen's Association (ILA) operates district-based multiemployer pension plans, which are more fragmented than the ILWU. Coverage varies by port:

• PANYNJ: ILA Pension Fund (Local 1199 and others). Funded ratio approximately 72% as of 2023.
• Port Everglades: ILA Local 1517 plan. Funded ratio varies.
• PortMiami: Separate ILA local arrangements.
• Savannah/GPA: ILA Local 333 plan. Estimated funded ratio ~75%.

Greater fragmentation risk: East Coast ILA plans are more underfunded than the ILWU plan, and each port's exposure is tied to its local union contract. Unlike the unified West Coast structure, ILA contracts are renegotiated every 6 years, creating periodic wage and benefit shocks. The 2023 ILA contract negotiations resulted in wage increases of 50% over the contract term, which will increase employer contributions to pension and healthcare plans.

2024–2026 Labor Dynamics

West Coast (ILWU): Current contract expires June 2027. Negotiations will likely focus on automation and AI, which directly threaten longshoremen hours. If the union secures restrictions on automation, labor-intensive port operations could sustain. If not, future automation could trigger mass withdrawal liabilities.

East Coast (ILA): Following 2023 contract ratification, wage rates increased to ~$39/hour plus benefits. ILA leadership has signaled that the next contract (2028–2029) will seek further raises and restrictions on automation. Ports with high ILA exposure (PANYNJ, EVG-P, PortMiami) face multi-year labor cost escalation.

Unfunded Pension Liability: Reading the Numbers

To assess pension risk, investors should examine three key metrics in a port's ACFR or Official Statement:

1. Funded Ratio

Formula: Plan Assets ÷ Total Pension Liability = Funded Ratio

Interpretation:

• Above 90%: Generally healthy; minimal cash flow pressure.
• 80–90%: Acceptable; contribution rates stable.
• 70–80%: Emerging concern; contribution rates may rise modestly.
• Below 70%: Underfunded; rising contribution pressure; rating agencies flag risk.

Example: A port discloses: "CalPERS funded ratio for the port's plan = 73%." This means for every $1.00 in liabilities, the plan has $0.73 in assets. The shortfall ($0.27) will be recovered through higher employer contributions or investment gains.

2. Contribution Rate (as % of Payroll)

Critical metric: How much of port payroll goes to pensions?

Typical ranges:

• Strong plans (90%+ funded): 12–18% of payroll.
• Moderate plans (75–85% funded): 18–25% of payroll.
• Weak plans (<70% funded): 25–35%+ of payroll.

A port paying 28% of administrative payroll to CalPERS is significantly constrained — nearly 3 out of every 10 dollars of payroll goes to pensions, leaving less for operations, IT, and capital maintenance.

Contribution rate trends: Most important. If a port's required contribution rate is growing 2–3% per year (due to plan underfunding or demographic aging), that escalation is baked into long-term cash flow projections. Investors should model 5–10 year contribution trajectories.

3. Net Pension Liability on the Balance Sheet

Formula: Total Pension Liability − Plan Assets = NPL

How to read it: If a port shows $400 million in assets and $550 million in TPL, the NPL is $150 million. This $150 million is a debt-like obligation and should be included when calculating port leverage ratios.

Leverage adjustment: A port with $1 billion in outstanding bonds and $150 million NPL effectively carries $1.15 billion in debt-like obligations. If net revenues are $400 million, the debt-to-revenue ratio is ($1.15B ÷ $400M) = 2.875x. Compare this to the covenant, which only measures the $1 billion in bonds.

OPEB Liabilities and Retiree Healthcare

OPEB liabilities — primarily retiree healthcare but also life insurance and dental coverage — often exceed pension liabilities at U.S. ports and are far more underfunded.

Why OPEB is Larger Than Pensions

Consider a typical port with 500 retirees and 800 active employees:

• Retiree healthcare: 500 retirees × $18,000/year average cost × 20-year remaining life = $180 million liability.
• Pension: Funded through CalPERS; port's proportionate liability = $50 million (smaller, because plan is partially funded and covers many employers).

Additionally, medical inflation runs 4–6% annually, which compounds dramatically over long timelines. A healthcare plan with $180 million liability in FY2024 will likely carry $210 million by FY2028, absent corrective measures.

Two Approaches to OPEB: Prefunded Trusts vs. Pay-As-You-Go

Prefunded (Rare): A few large ports (e.g., Port of Seattle) have established OPEB trusts to prefund retiree healthcare liabilities. The port makes annual contributions to the trust, which invests assets and pays claims. This reduces the balance sheet NPL but requires disciplined funding over decades.

Pay-As-You-Go (Most Common): Most ports (POLA, POLB, Port of Oakland, PortMiami, EVG-P) pay retiree healthcare claims directly from operating budgets, year-to-year. The full actuarial liability (often $200–500 million+) sits on the balance sheet as unfunded NPL under GASB 75.

Credit impact: A port carrying $300 million in unfunded OPEB plus $150 million in unfunded pension liability = $450 million in off-balance-sheet future obligations. If the port also carries $800 million in bonds, its effective leverage is much higher than the bond-only ratio suggests.

Medical Inflation and Liability Creep

The actuarial OPEB liability is extraordinarily sensitive to assumed healthcare inflation. A 1% change in the long-term healthcare inflation assumption can swing a $200 million liability by $30–50 million.

Example: PortMiami's ACFR discloses: "OPEB liability calculated using 4.5% healthcare inflation assumption, grading to 3.5% by 2040." If the actual inflation rate exceeds 4.5%, the liability will grow faster than anticipated, pressuring cash flow. If medical costs remain elevated due to COVID aftereffects or aging of the U.S. population, the liability can accelerate unpredictably.

Credit Analysis: How Rating Agencies Assess Pension Burden

Moody's, S&P, and Fitch all incorporate pension and OPEB analysis into port credit ratings. The methodology is evolving, but the core principle is consistent: treat pension/OPEB liabilities as economic debt competing for operating revenue.

Moody's Pension-Adjusted Leverage

Moody's publishes a "pension-adjusted leverage" metric that adds the net pension liability to outstanding debt:

Formula: (Outstanding Debt + NPL + OPEB Liability) ÷ Operating Revenue = Pension-Adjusted Leverage

Example (fictional Port X):

• Outstanding bonds: $500 million.
• Net pension liability: $80 million.
• Net OPEB liability: $120 million.
• Operating revenue: $300 million.
• Pension-adjusted leverage = ($500M + $80M + $120M) ÷ $300M = 2.33x.

If traditional leverage (bonds only) is 1.67x, the pension adjustment increases effective leverage by 40%. Moody's uses this adjusted ratio in its credit assessment to determine whether the port has sufficient financial capacity to service all obligations (debt + pension contributions + OPEB claims) during a downturn.

Stress-Testing Pension Contributions

Rating agencies stress-test a port's ability to maintain debt service coverage if pension contribution rates spike. Scenario:

• Current pension contribution: 20% of payroll ($40 million/year for 500 employees at $200K average).
• Stress scenario: Plan funded ratio drops to 60% (due to market downturn); contribution rate rises to 28% of payroll ($56 million/year).
• Additional cash outflow: $16 million/year for 5 years until recovery.
• Impact on debt service: If DSCR is currently 2.2x, and this $16 million is deducted from net revenue, new DSCR = (Net Revenue − $16M) ÷ Debt Service. If debt service is $80 million and net revenue is $250 million, original DSCR = 2.2x. With $16 million reduction: ($250M − $16M) ÷ $80M = 2.925x → Stressed DSCR = 2.9x. Still adequate, but the margin is narrower.

Multiemployer Withdrawal Liability Treatment

Fitch, in particular, flags multiemployer pension withdrawal liability as a credit concern. Fitch's treatment varies by port:

• Ports with low automation risk: Withdrawal liability treated as "contingent and low probability," not added to debt.
• Ports exposed to container volume shifts or automation: Fitch may add a notional 10–25% withdrawal liability to effective debt for stress-testing.

Example: POLA handles ~10 million TEUs annually. If automation were to reduce labor-intensive operations by 30%, withdrawal liability could reach $200 million. Fitch might add a portion of this to debt in downside scenarios.

Investor Due Diligence

Revenue bondholders should conduct the following pension and OPEB review for any port bond investment:

1. Locate Pension Data in the ACFR

Port ACFRs contain a "Notes to Financial Statements" section (Note 6 or 7, typically) detailing pension and OPEB obligations. Look for:

• Pension disclosure table: Shows plan assets, liabilities, funded ratio, NPL, and port's proportionate share.
• Contribution history: Last 5–10 years of required vs. actual contributions. Any shortfalls indicate funding stress.
• OPEB trust funding: If the port has an OPEB trust, the ACFR will show trust assets and funding progress. Most ports show $0 in OPEB trust assets (unfunded).

2. Calculate Pension-Adjusted Leverage

Recompute the leverage ratio including NPL and OPEB liability:

Step 1: Locate net revenues (from the ACFR income statement): e.g., $425 million.

Step 2: Locate outstanding debt (from the debt schedule): e.g., $800 million.

Step 3: Locate NPL and OPEB NPL (from pension note): e.g., $90 million + $180 million = $270 million.

Step 4: Calculate: ($800M + $270M) ÷ $425M = 2.52x pension-adjusted leverage.

Benchmark: Compare to the port's traditional leverage (bond debt ÷ net revenue = $800M ÷ $425M = 1.88x). The pension adjustment added 0.64x, a 34% increase.

3. Review Contribution Rate Trajectory

Request the port's 10-year pension contribution forecast (usually available from the port's finance team or ACFR). Plot the trend:

• Flat or declining rates: Healthy plan; minimal pressure.
• Steady 2–3% annual growth: Normal for maturing plans; manageable.
• Sharp spikes (5%+ in a single year): Indicates plan underfunding or actuarial losses; red flag.

4. Assess Multiemployer Pension Exposure

For West Coast ports (POLA, POLB, Port of Oakland, Port of Seattle, Port of Tacoma), document:

• Longshoremen hours worked at the port annually (from port operating data).
• Port's proportionate share of ILWU/ILA pension assets and liabilities (from PMA or ILA plan actuarial reports).
• Contingent withdrawal liability calculation: (Plan unfunded liability × Port's labor hour %

Use this to estimate maximum downside exposure. If a port's contingent withdrawal liability could exceed $200 million, that's a material credit concern during periods of automation or trade disruption.

5. Stress-Test DSCR Under Pension Contribution Spike

Using the port's 10-year projections, model:

• Base case: Current contribution rates, stable traffic, projected debt service.
• Stress case 1: Contribution rates increase 25% (due to plan underfunding). What is the stressed DSCR?
• Stress case 2: Contribution rates + traffic decline (e.g., 2% cargo volume loss). What is DSCR?

If the stressed DSCR falls below the legal covenant (typically 1.10x–1.25x for ports), the bond rating could face downgrade risk. Investors should demand a comfortable margin (at least 1.50x–1.75x stressed coverage).

6. Question OPEB Trust Funding

When reviewing the ACFR, ask:

• Does the port have an OPEB trust? If yes, how much is funded?
• If unfunded: What is the port's plan to address the liability (prefunding over time, reducing benefits, increasing retiree cost-sharing)?
• Has the port modeled the impact of a 1–2% increase in healthcare inflation on the liability?

Ports with no OPEB trust and no clear funding plan represent higher credit risk, especially if the OPEB liability is growing faster than revenues.

Related Articles

Port Financial Reporting and GASB Standards
Port and Harbor Credit Analysis
Port Labor: ILWU, ILA, and Bond Credit
Port Financial Benchmarking and KPIs