[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PRACTICAL STEPS TOWARD A CARBON-FREE MAR-
ITIME INDUSTRY: UPDATES ON FUELS, PORTS,
AND TECHNOLOGY
=======================================================================
(117-12)
REMOTE HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 15, 2021
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
44-944 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
SAM GRAVES, Missouri ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
DON YOUNG, Alaska District of Columbia
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
BOB GIBBS, Ohio RICK LARSEN, Washington
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois JOHN GARAMENDI, California
JOHN KATKO, New York HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
BRIAN BABIN, Texas Georgia
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina DINA TITUS, Nevada
MIKE BOST, Illinois SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas JARED HUFFMAN, California
DOUG LaMALFA, California JULIA BROWNLEY, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania MARK DeSAULNIER, California
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
Puerto Rico SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee GREG STANTON, Arizona
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas, Vice Chair
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
NANCY MACE, South Carolina CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
MICHELLE STEEL, California CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia
KAIALI`I KAHELE, Hawaii
MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
Vacancy
------ 7
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California, Chair
RICK LARSEN, Washington BOB GIBBS, Ohio
JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts DON YOUNG, Alaska
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas
ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio)
Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ v
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Hon. Salud O. Carbajal, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, and Chair, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation, opening statement..................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Bob Gibbs, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Ohio, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation, opening statement..................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, opening statement.............................. 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, prepared statement............................. 57
WITNESSES
John W. Butler, President and Chief Executive Officer, World
Shipping Council, oral statement............................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Kristin Decas, Chief Executive Officer and Port Director, Port of
Hueneme-Oxnard Harbor District, oral statement................. 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Morgan M. Fanberg, P.E., President, Glosten, Inc., oral statement 23
Prepared statement........................................... 25
B. Lee Kindberg, Ph.D., GCB.D, Head of Environment and
Sustainability-North America, Maersk, oral statement........... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Dan Rutherford, Ph.D., Marine and Aviation Program Director,
International Council on Clean Transportation, oral statement.. 33
Prepared statement........................................... 34
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Submissions for the Record by Hon. Salud O. Carbajal:
Letter of April 14, 2021, from Daniel Hubbell, Shipping
Emissions Campaign Manager, Ocean Conservancy.............. 4
Letter of June 22, 2021, Regarding Port of Hueneme and the
Vessel Speed Reduction Program, from Kristin Decas, Chief
Executive Officer and Port Director, Port of Hueneme-Oxnard
Harbor District............................................ 43
Statement of Jennifer States, Director for Blue Economy, DNV
Energy and Maritime North America, Submitted for the Record by
Hon. Bob Gibbs................................................. 57
APPENDIX
Question from Hon. Alan S. Lowenthal to Dan Rutherford, Ph.D.,
Marine and Aviation Program Director, International Council on
Clean Transportation........................................... 67
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
April 12, 2021
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: LMembers, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation
FROM: LStaff, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation
RE: LHearing on ``Practical Steps Toward a Carbon-Free
Maritime Industry: Updates on Fuels, Ports, and Technology''
_______________________________________________________________________
PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
will hold a hearing on Thursday, April 15, 2021, at 11:00 a.m.
EDT to examine emissions output from vessels and ports, and the
future of zero emissions technology. The hearing will take
place in 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom. The
Subcommittee will hear testimony from Glosten, International
Council on Clean Transportation, Maersk, the Port of Hueneme,
and World Shipping Council.
BACKGROUND
MARITIME EMISSIONS
Maritime transportation is vital to the world economy. With
over 80 percent of global trade by volume carried onboard ships
and handled by seaports worldwide, the importance of maritime
transportation for trade cannot be overemphasized.\1\ In order
to meet the stringent demands of shippers and compete on a
worldwide playing field, shipping companies have traditionally
relied on cheap and readily available fuels, often including
fossil fuels such as bunker fuel. As a result of fossil fuel
consumption, shipping accounts for 3 percent of the world's
carbon emissions and if shipping were a country, the sector
would be the world's sixth-largest emitter.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. ``Review of
Maritime Transport 2017.'' https://unctad.org/system/files/official-
document/rmt2017_en.pdf. Accessed on April 5, 2021.
\2\ Bloomberg. ``Huge Container Ships' Biggest Problem Is
Emissions.'' https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-30/
huge-container-ships-biggest-problem-is-
emissions. Accessed on April 5, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For nearly 100 years, ships have run on cheap bunker fuel.
When burned, bunker fuel emits large amounts of carbon dioxide
(CO2) as well as black carbon, a fine particulate that can
absorb a million times the incoming solar energy as CO2.\3\
Black carbon accounts for 21 percent of CO2-equivalent
emissions from ships, making it the second most important
driver of the shipping industry's climate impacts after CO2.\4\
Currently there are no regulations controlling black carbon
emissions from shipping.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Bloomberg. ``Huge Container Ships' Biggest Problem Is
Emissions.'' https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-30/
huge-container-ships-biggest-problem-is-
emissions. Accessed on April 5, 2021.
\4\ Transport & Environment. ``Shipping and climate change.''
https://www.transportenvironment.org/what-we-do/shipping-and-
environment/shipping-and-climate-change. Accessed April 5, 2021.
\5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At current growth rates, shipping could represent about 10
percent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050.\6\
The Third International Maritime Organization (IMO) GHG Study,
completed in 2014, estimated that for the period 2007-2012,
shipping emitted about 1,000 megatons of CO2 per year, equaling
approximately 3.1 percent of annual global CO2 emissions.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id.
\7\ International Maritime Organization. ``Third IMO GHG Study
2014: Final report.'' https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Pages/
Greenhouse-Gas-Studies-2014.aspx. Accessed April 5, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessel fuel efficiency has not kept pace with other modes
of transportation. Ships built in the first decade of the 2000s
were, on average, less fuel-efficient than those built in the
1990s, according to the first CE Delft study on the historical
development of the design efficiency of new ships.\8\ On
average new ships built in 2013, such as bulk carriers,
tankers, and container ships, were 10 percent less fuel-
efficient than those built a quarter of a century ago.\9\ These
findings contradict the shipping industry's narrative that it
has been constantly improving its environmental
performance.\10\ CO2 emissions grew to 1,056 million tons in
2018 versus 962 million tons in 2012, the study showed.\11\
According to the International Council on Clean Transportation
(ICCT), the growth of shipping is outpacing efficiency
improvements and by 2050, emissions from the industry are
projected to be up to 130 percent higher than 2008 levels.
Improvements in fuel efficiency have slowed since 2015, with
annual improvements of only 1 to 2 percent.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id.
\9\ Transport & Environment. ``Shipping and climate change.''
https://www.transportenvironment.org/what-we-do/shipping-and-
environment/shipping-and-climate-change. Accessed April 5, 2021.
\10\ Id.
\11\ Reuters. ``Shipping's share of global carbon emissions
increases.'' https://www.reuters.com/article/us-shipping-environment-
imo/shippings-share-of-global-carbon-emissions-increases-
idUSKCN2502AY. Accessed April 5, 2021.
\12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the shipping sector investments in the research,
development, and deployment of zero emission technologies may
put the sector on a sustainable path towards achieving carbon
reductions. The IMO has set a goal of reducing carbon emissions
from ships to 50 percent below 2008 levels by 2050, and groups
like the Getting to Zero Coalition and ``Blue Sky'' Maritime
Coalition have brought together companies and organizations
across the maritime sector to achieve this goal. In fact, many
shipping companies have adopted their own ambitious goals for
reducing their operational carbon footprint.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Bloomberg. ``Huge Container Ships' Biggest Problem Is
Emissions.'' https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-30/
huge-container-ships-biggest-problem-
is-emissions. Accessed on April 5, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PORT INFRASTRUCTURE
The most immediate reduction in emissions will come from
investment in port infrastructure. Shore-side power (i.e.,
shore power) allows ships to shut off their engines when
berthed in port and connect to the electricity grid to reduce
local air pollution and GHG emissions.\14\ Shore power
infrastructure varies by ship type but is being implemented
worldwide. Unlike other technologies for which research and
development are still underway, this technology exists and is
available to ports for immediate adoption.\15\ For vessels such
as tankers, cruise ships, and roll-on/roll-off (i.e., ro-ro)
vessels that commonly berth at the same dock and do not use
cranes, shore-side connection is easier. At container terminals
where vessels do not always dock at the same position, there is
a need for more connection points.\16\ These variables present
challenges to ports and create a need for worldwide shore power
consistency and standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The Conversation. ``How shipping ports can become more
sustainable.'' https://theconversation.com/how-shippingports-can-
become-more-sustainable-156483. Accessed April 5, 2021.
\15\ Id.
\16\ International Council on Clean Transportation. ``Costs and
Benefits of Shore Power at The Port of Shenzhen.'' https://theicct.org/
sites/default/files/publications/ICCT-WCtr_ShorePower_
201512a.pdf. Accessed April 5, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A major benefit of using shore power is the improvement in
local air quality.\17\ Emissions at berth are replaced by
emissions from electricity generation elsewhere that provides
the shore power; emissions from electricity generation are
usually lower and occur further from population centers.\18\
Reducing harmful emissions at ports would also mitigate the
public health impacts associated with port operations, which
disproportionately affect low-income communities and people of
color.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Id.
\18\ Id.
\19\ Ocean Conservancy. ``Economic Recovery and a Zero-Emission
Shipping Sector: A Roadmap for Federal Investment.'' Page 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the installation of shore power technology at
ports can lead to a drain on local electrical systems and a
substantial increase in electricity demand. Some ports are
exploring the use of microgrids to establish electrical
security and demand stability. Microgrids provide a way for
ports to minimize the use of diesel generators, their common
form of power backup, and can allow for the integration of
renewable energy technology to decrease the overall emissions.
A primary hurdle to integrating shore power and microgrid
technologies is the upfront costs, which can cost millions of
dollars and require significant resources from port and marine
terminals. For example, the Port of Los Angeles invested $27
million on a microgrid project in 2018, which required
financial assistance in the form of state grants.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ ``Enabling Smart Ports Through the Integration of Microgrids:
A Two-Stage Stochastic Programming Approach'' http://www.ie.uh.edu/
sites/ie/files/faculty/glim/SPMicrogrid_Elsevier-AE-2019.pdf. Accessed
April 6, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond the capacity demand for shore power plug-in will be
the need for refueling infrastructure as new, lower emission
fuels are adopted. Fuel sources such as green hydrogen present
unique carbon zero emissions possibilities, though there is a
lack of refueling infrastructure in place for maritime
uses.\21\ This presents a challenge in which shipping companies
may wish to build vessels that operate on a new fuel source,
but cannot refuel due to the lack of infrastructure;
conversely, the opposite could occur where a port may wish to
invest in the refueling infrastructure but lack consumer demand
for utilization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ DNV. ``Building a marine supply infrastructure as part of a
future hydrogen society.'' https://www.dnv.com/expert-story/maritime-
impact/Building-a-marine-supply-infrastructure-
as-part-of-a-future-hydrogen-society.html. Accessed April 9, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALTERNATIVE FUELS
The IMO has established increasingly stringent targets for
CO2 emissions reductions in international shipping from the
2008 baseline: a 40 percent reduction by 2030, and a 70 percent
reduction by 2050 regardless of trade growth, with full
decarbonization shortly thereafter.\22\ The IMO Energy
Efficiency Design Index requires all ships built after 2013 to
meet mandatory reductions with progressive targets every five
years up until 2030, which is currently incompatible with
continued long-term use of fossil fuels by commercial
shipping.\23\ While demand for seaborne trade is projected to
grow by 39 percent through 2050, energy-efficiency measures,
hull and machinery improvements, and speed reduction are
readily available to reduce vessel emissions; however, the use
of carbon-neutral fuels will need to grow 30-40 percent to meet
world fleet energy needs by 2050 to achieve IMO greenhouse gas
ambitions.\24\ According to the Global Maritime Forum and is
demonstrated by figure 1 below, zero emissions adoptions need
to be at 5 percent of the market share by 2030 to reach full
decarbonization by 2050.\25\ Slow adoption of zero emissions
technology is anticipated at first but is expected to grow
substantially as cost decreases and availability increases.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ International Maritime Organization. ``IMO Action to Reduce
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from International Shipping.'' IMO 2019.
\23\ Nishatabbas et al. ``The implementation of technical energy
efficiency and CO2 emission reduction measures in shipping.'' Ocean
Engineering, Vol. 139, 2017: 184-197, https://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0029801817302160?via%3Dihub. Accessed April 6,
2021; DNV GL, ``Maritime Forecast to 2050 Energy Transition Outlook
2019.'' https://eto.dnv.com/2018/download. Accessed April 6, 2021.
\24\ DNV GL. ``Maritime Forecast to 2050 Energy Transition Outlook
2019.'' page 15. https://eto.dnv.com/2018/download. Accessed April 6,
2021.
\25\ Global Maritime Forum. ``Zero Emission Fuel Adoption Rate.''
https://www.globalmaritimeforum.org/news/five-percent-zero-emission-
fuels-by-2030-needed-for-paris-
aligned-shipping-decarbonization. Accessed April 8, 2021.
\26\ Id.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 1_Global Maritime Forum. ``Zero Emission Fuel Adoption Rate''
available at https://www.globalmaritimeforum.org/news/five-percent-
zero-emission-fuels-by-2030-needed-for-paris-aligned-shipping-
decarbonization
Additionally, by 2025, the IMO will require all new ships
to be 30 percent more energy efficient than those built in
2014.\27\ The international fleet has made substantial
improvements to vessel design, emission scrubbing technologies,
and fuel efficiency to mitigate emissions, but to reach the
goals established by the IMO shipping companies will need to
invest in new vessels, alternative fuels, shore and supply
infrastructure, and logistics facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Reuters. Chestney. N. ``IMO agrees on stricter efficiency
targets for some ships.'' May 2019. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-
imo-shipping-efficiency/imo-agrees-on-stricter-efficiency-
targets-for-some-ships-idUSKCN1SN2BV. Accessed April 6, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ships are highly capital-intensive assets with typical
operating lives of 20-30 years.\28\ As such, and with the
ratification of new emissions standards by the IMO, shipping
companies must consider zero-carbon fuels and associated
technologies now to meet established deadlines. Vessels coming
online after 2030 will need to be zero-emission vessels (ZEVs)
or very low emission vessels to assure they can operate for
their full expected commercial life. The technical
applicability and commercial viability of alternative fuels and
power sources will vary greatly for different ship types and
trades, like deep-sea vessels or coastwise shipping
operators.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Journal of Physics. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science
and Engineering. ``Maritime vessel obsolescence, life cycle cost and
design service life.'' https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-
899X/95/1/012067/pdf. Accessed April 8, 2021.
\29\ DNV. ``Alternative Fuel Technologies can Bridge the Gap.''
https://eto.dnv.com/2019/Maritime/alternative-fuels. Accessed April 9,
2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING
International, oceangoing vessels will need different fuel
sources and technologies than inland and coastal vessels due to
their size and the length of their voyage. Further, cargo ships
vary widely in performance and design. In addition to
retrofitting existing ships, compliant vessels can be designed
efficiently and built to meet the new emissions standards. New
vessel designs, including battery electric propulsion, wind
propulsion, hydrodynamic designs, internal engine
modifications, humid air motors, and other internal engineering
adjustments are no longer theoretical options for shipowners.
Rotor sails, for example, can reduce a ship's fuel use by 5-20
percent.\30\ Norsepower in Finland, Ladeas in Norway, Mitsui
O.S.K. Lines, Ltd. and NYK Line in Japan, have acquired
detailed design contracts for wind-assisted propulsion; some
projects already have operational wind-assisted vessels on the
water today.\31\ For existing vessels, operators can assess
vessel efficiency based on each ship's design specifications
and engine type, helping to lower their fuel costs and reduce
emissions associated with moving goods around the world.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Kornei, K. ``Spinning metal sails could slash fuel
consumption, emissions on cargo ships.'' Science. https://
www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/spinning-metal-sails-could-slash-fuel-
consumption-emissions-cargo-ships. September 2017. Accessed April 6,
2021.
\31\ Grist. Gallucci, M. ``Dreamboats.'' October 21, 2019. https://
grist.org/fix/dream-ships-could-turn-the-tide-for-trans-ocean-
shipping/. Accessed April 6, 2021.
\32\ Grist. Gallucci, M. ``Shipping industry takes a page from
bitcoin to clean up its act.'' https://grist.org/article/shipping-
industry-takes-a-page-from-bitcoin-to-clean-up-its-act/. Accessed April
6, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting January 2020, the IMO placed a global upper limit
of 0.5 percent (reduced from 3.5 percent) on the Sulfur content
of marine fuel.\33\ Known as ``IMO 2020,'' the reduced limit is
mandatory for all ships operating outside certain designated
Emission Control Areas where the limit previously was 0.1
percent.\34\ Existing technologies and fuels deployed to meet
IMO 2020 and other emissions caps include scrubbers, a
mechanical treatment of high sulfur fuels to remove sulfur from
the exhaust of the vessel, and switching to low sulfur fuels
like liquefied natural gas (LNG), which remains price-
competitive with distillate fuels and requires limited
installation of additional processing technology. Alternative
technologies under consideration by operators to meet the new
IMO emissions caps include hydrogen, ammonia, methanol, and
electricity. Another concern that arises from the use of these
fuels is the availability, supply, and potential impacts on
consumer prices of the increased demand for source material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ International Maritime Organization. ``IMO 2020--cleaner
shipping for cleaner air.'' https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/
PressBriefings/Pages/34-IMO-2020-sulphur-limit-.aspx#: :text
=and%20the%20environment.-
,From%201%20January%202020%20the%20global%20upper%20
limit%20on%20the,the%20limit%20is%20already%200.10%25. Accessed April
6, 2021.
\34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Importantly however, LNG does not deliver the emissions
reductions required by the IMO's initial GHG strategy, and its
consumption could actually worsen the shipping industry's
climate impacts.\35\ Over a 100-year time frame, the maximum
life cycle GHG benefit of LNG is a 15 percent reduction
compared with other bunker fuels, and this is only if ships use
a high-pressure injection dual fuel (HPDF) engine and if
upstream methane emissions are well-controlled.\36\ There are
concerns that continued investment in LNG infrastructure on
ships and on shore might make the transition to low-carbon and
zero-carbon fuels in the future more difficult.\37\ Over a 20-
year time period, methane traps 86 times more heat than the
same amount of CO2.\38\ Depending upon the state of engine
technology, LNG-fueled ships might become less viable if GHG
limits are established well before 2050. Concerns about such
GHG limits might lead to a decrease in orders of LNG-powered
ships over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Id.
\36\ International Council on Clean Transportation. ``The climate
implications of using LNG as a marine fuel.'' https://theicct.org/
publications/climate-impacts-LNG-marine-fuel-2020. Accessed April 5,
2021.
\37\ Id.
\38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Companies like Maersk are leading initiatives to develop
carbon neutral vessels by 2023.\39\ These vessels would run on
fuels such as biofuels or methanol. While these fuels do emit
carbon, it is derived from plant material, which first pulls
carbon out of the atmosphere during photosynthesis and the
equivalent amount of carbon is released during usage.\40\ This
would not add any new CO2 to the atmosphere, like fossil-based
fuels do, but does not reach the zero-emission mark and still
places emission burdens on port adjacent communities.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Maersk. ``A.P. Moller--Maersk will operate the world's first
carbon neutral liner vessel by 2023--seven years ahead of schedule.''
https://www.maersk.com/news/articles/2021/02/17/maersk-first-carbon-
neutral-liner-vessel-by-2023. Accessed April 9, 2021.
\40\ International Council on Clean Transportation. ``The potential
of liquid biofuels in reducing ship emissions.'' https://theicct.org/
sites/default/files/publications/Marine-biofuels-sept2020.pdf. Accessed
April 9, 2021.
\41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrogen is a potential energy carrier that can potentially
supplement traditional fuel sources or complement electricity
on vessels. When produced from electricity, these fuels are
called electro or e-fuels and include ammonia, methanol, formic
acid, synthetic methane (SNG), or higher hydrocarbon synthetic
fuels (syn-fuel).\42\ Currently, hydrogen is predominantly used
as feedstock for the chemical and petro-chemical industries and
produced from natural gas through steam reforming or partial
oxidation (blue hydrogen if combined with carbon capture and
storage). Hydrogen has great potential to decarbonize
industrial processes and facilitate the energy transition as it
can also be produced from renewable electricity, termed ``green
hydrogen''.\43\ Some ports are natural hubs for connecting
offshore wind given their often-close proximity to wind farms,
and therefore have easy access to abundant renewable
electricity, which can be converted to green hydrogen through
electrolysis. The economic competitiveness of green hydrogen
will likely require investments in both ports and vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ DNV. ``10 transitions to turn ports into decarbonization
hubs.'' https://www.dnv.com/power-renewables/themes/green-ports/
index.html. Accessed April 5, 2021.
\43\ University of Houston. ``Advancing Sustainable Low-Carbon
Energy through Convergence.'' https://uh.edu/uh-energy/research/ccme/
advancing-sustainable-low-carbon-energy/adv-sus-
low-carbon-energy-convergence. Accessed April 9, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. DOMESTIC SHIPPING
Coastwise vessels, traveling shorter distances and with
variable power demands relative to international shipping
vessels, make electric or hybrid-electric power systems
(including diesel/gas electric) more efficient than traditional
mechanical drives. The wide range of engine load profiles in
the coastwise fleet increases flexibility for battery storage,
fuel cells and waste heat, as well as renewable sources (e.g.
solar, wind, waves).
Electrification of the domestic industry will be enabled by
a massive deployment of additional renewable energy source
capacity, the associated grid and storage infrastructure, green
hydrogen production, electric boilers, and heat pumps.
Electrification of vessels could result in a 50 percent
decrease of fossil cargo (oil, gas, LNG). Companies have worked
with state and local entities on electrification conversion
projects--for example, Glosten partnered with the state of
Alabama to convert the historic Gee's Bend Ferry into the first
all-electric passenger/car ferry \44\ in the United States.
These projects have demonstrated the applicability to the
coastwise fleet, but hurdles still exist for electric vessels
that need more powerful systems and operate in locations
without the necessary infrastructure. This could have a
significant impact on the surrounding industry, improve the
local electricity grid, and support utility services and other
electricity production facilities should the proper investments
in infrastructure to support these projects be made.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Glosten. ``The Nation's First All-Electric Vehicle Ferry''
https://glosten.com/sectors/the-nations-first-all-electric-vehicle-
ferry/. Accessed April 9, 2021.
\45\ DNV. ``10 transitions to turn ports into decarbonization
hubs.'' https://www.dnv.com/power-renewables/themes/green-ports/
index.html. Page 21. Accessed April 5, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To develop, prove, scale, and commercialize
electrification, operators are establishing collaborative joint
ventures with fuel technology companies, equipment
manufacturers, and energy developers from other industrial
sectors outside of shipping. The U.S. Department of Energy,\46\
the Maritime Administration's Marine Environmental Technical
Assistance office,\47\ and the U.S. Coast Guard \48\ have
initiated conversations about the availability and viability of
new fuels and energy sources for use throughout the maritime
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Department of Energy. ``DOE Shows Fuel Cells Used in Maritime
Applications Can Increase Efficiency by 30%.'' https://www.energy.gov/
eere/fuelcells/articles/doe-shows-fuel-cells-used-
maritime-applications-can-increase-efficiency-30. Accessed April 9,
2021.
\47\ Maritime Administration. Maritime Environmental and Technical
Assistance (META) Program. https://www.maritime.dot.gov/innovation/
meta/maritime-environmental-and-technical-assistance-meta-program.
Accessed on April 9, 2021.
\48\ United States Coast Guard. ``Energy Management Performance.''
https://www.dcms.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for-
Engineering-Logistics-CG-4-/Program-Offices/
Energy-Management/. Accessed April 9, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITNESS LIST
LMr. John Butler, President and Chief Executive
Officer, World Shipping Council
LMs. Kristin Decas, Chief Executive Officer and
Port Director, The Port of Hueneme
LMr. Morgan Fanberg, P.E., President, Glosten
LDr. Lee Kindberg, Director of Environment &
Sustainability, Maersk
LDr. Dan Rutherford, Program Director and Regional
Lead, International Council on Clean Transportation
PRACTICAL STEPS TOWARD A CARBON-FREE MARITIME INDUSTRY: UPDATES ON
FUELS, PORTS, AND TECHNOLOGY
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 2021
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:04 a.m. in
2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom, Hon. Salud O.
Carbajal (Chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present in person: Mr. Carbajal, Mr. DeFazio, Mr.
Larsen, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Weber, and Ms. Malliotakis.
Members present remotely: Mr. Auchincloss, Mr. Lowenthal,
Ms. Brownley, and Mr. Van Drew.
Mr. Carbajal. The subcommittee will come to order.
I ask unanimous consent that the chair be authorized to
declare a recess at any time during today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing and ask questions.
Without objection, so ordered.
For Members participating remotely, please let committee
staff know as soon as possible if you are experiencing
connectivity issues or technical problems.
To avoid any inadvertent background noise, I request that
every Member please keep their microphones muted when not
seeking recognition to speak. Should I hear any inadvertent
background noise, I will request that the Member please mute
their microphone. And finally, to insert a document into the
record, please have your staff email it to
DocumentsT&I@mail.house.gov.
With that, we will commence our hearing.
Good morning and welcome to today's Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation Subcommittee hearing on practical steps
toward a carbon-free maritime industry. Today we will examine
the progress towards eliminating carbon emissions in the
maritime industry, and how Congress can support these efforts.
This work is crucial to mitigating the effects of climate
change. Without decisive action in the maritime industry and
elsewhere, we are going to experience severe impacts on our way
of life from sea level rise, flooding, and more frequent
extreme weather events.
Climate change is one of the most important challenges of
our time. As we seek solutions, we must capitalize on the
opportunity to promote American innovation and bolster the
American workforce. Burning fossil fuels in the maritime
industry and elsewhere results in emissions of greenhouse gases
and other pollutants that are harmful to human health.
Greenhouse gases also absorb and trap heat in our atmosphere,
which has led to shifts in regional climate patterns that have
consequences for our food and water systems, public and private
infrastructure, and national security.
The science is crystal clear: We are vulnerable to climate
changes due to human actions. Over the past 171 years, human
activities have raised atmospheric concentrations of carbon
dioxide by 48 percent above pre-industrial levels found in
1850. The last time the atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts were
this high was more than 3 million years ago--let me say that
again: more than 3 million years ago--when the temperature was
3.6 to 5.4 degrees higher than during the pre-industrial era,
and sea level was 50 to 80 feet higher than today.
Unfortunately, many of the worst air pollution problems can
occur in our communities comprised of minority populations.
Port communities are directly exposed to nitrous oxide, sulfur
dioxide, and particulate matter, and have some of the country's
highest asthma rates. Many of these citizens make up our
maritime and longshore workforce, so their health is not only a
moral issue, but also a public good for sustaining maritime
commerce.
Commerce by sea is cleaner and safer than transportation by
land, and we should do everything possible to encourage more
waterborne transportation. But traditional maritime fuel emits
harmful greenhouse gases, contributing to global and regional
climate change. International shipping accounts for 3 percent
of the world's carbon emissions, and if it were a country, the
sector would be the world's sixth largest emitter.
The International Maritime Organization has set an
ambitious goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 50
percent before 2050, which is not possible unless the industry
takes immediate and aggressive action. But that is not enough.
Maritime carbon emissions must be eliminated if we are to avoid
the most devastating impacts of climate change.
While the challenge can seem daunting, we must recognize
and capitalize on the opportunity for American industry to
innovate and lead the pack. If we develop new forms of energy
generation, we can also create jobs for the American people. We
are already seeing positive steps taken by ports, vessel
owners, shipyards, academic institutions, and State and local
governments, such as the Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control
District in the central coast of California, which I represent.
The Air Pollution Control District has developed a vessel
speed reduction program, ``Protecting Blue Whales and Blue
Skies,'' that has not only cut carbon emissions, but has
reduced noise pollution in our local waterways, and avoided
vessel strikes with local marine mammals. I know Representative
Lowenthal had a lot to do with these efforts in his area, as
well, in the Port of Long Beach and the Long Beach region.
I am convinced that, if we think outside the box, we can
bolster our maritime industry, create new jobs, and position
America as a leader in maritime technologies. I look forward to
hearing from our expert witnesses on ways to reach our
ambitious emissions goals, while stimulating the U.S. economy
and domestic job growth.
[Mr. Carbajal's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Salud O. Carbajal, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California, and Chair, Subcommittee on Coast
Guard and Maritime Transportation
Good morning, and welcome to today's Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Subcommittee hearing on ``Practical Steps Toward a
Carbon-Free Maritime Industry.'' Today, we will examine the progress
toward eliminating carbon emissions in the maritime industry, and how
Congress can be supportive. This work is crucial to mitigating the
effects of climate change. Without decisive action in the maritime
industry and elsewhere, we are going to experience severe impacts on
our way of life from sea-level rise, flooding, and extreme weather
events.
Climate change is the most important challenge of our time. As we
seek solutions, we must capitalize on the opportunity to promote
American innovation and bolster the American workforce.
Burning fossil fuels in the maritime industry and elsewhere results
in the emission of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants that are
harmful to human health. Greenhouse gases also absorb and trap heat in
our atmosphere, which has led to shifts in regional climate patterns
that have consequences for our food and water systems, public and
private infrastructure, and national security. The science is crystal
clear, we are vulnerable to climate changes due to human actions.
Over the past 171 years, human activities have raised atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide by 48% above pre-industrial levels
found in 1850. The last time the atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts
were this high was more than 3 million years ago, when temperature was
3.6 to 5.4 degrees higher than during the pre-industrial era, and sea
level was 50 to 80 feet higher than today.
Unfortunately, many of the worst air pollution problems occur in
communities comprised of minority populations. Port communities are
directly exposed to nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate
matter, and have some of the country's highest asthma rates. Many of
these citizens make up our maritime and longshore workforce, so their
health is not only a moral issue but also a public good for sustaining
maritime commerce.
Commerce by sea is cleaner and safer than transportation by land,
and we should do everything possible to encourage more waterborne
transportation, but traditional maritime fuel emits harmful greenhouse
gases contributing to global and regional climate change. International
shipping accounts for 3 percent of the world's carbon emissions, and if
it were a country, the sector would be the world's sixth-largest
emitter.
The International Maritime Organization has set an ambitious goal
of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 50 percent before 2050, but
that is not possible unless the industry takes immediate and aggressive
action. But that is not enough. Maritime carbon emissions must be
eliminated if we are to avoid the most devastating impacts of climate
change. While the challenge can seem daunting, we must recognize and
capitalize on the opportunity for American industry to innovate and
lead the pack. If we develop new forms of energy generation, we can
create jobs for American workers.
We are already seeing positive steps taken by ports, vessel owners,
shipyards, academic institutions, and state and local governments such
as the Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District in California's
24th Congressional District. The Air Pollution Control District has
developed a vessel speed reduction program that has not only cut carbon
emissions but has reduced noise pollution in our local waterways and
avoided vessel strikes with local marine mammals. I am convinced that
if we think outside the box, we can bolster our maritime industry,
create new jobs, and position America as the leader in maritime
technologies.
I look forward to hearing from our expert witnesses on ways to
reach our ambitious emissions goals while stimulating the U.S. economy
and domestic job growth.
Mr. Carbajal. I ask unanimous consent to insert a statement
from the Ocean Conservancy into the hearing record.
Without objection?
Without objection, so be it.
[The information follows:]
Letter of April 14, 2021, from Daniel Hubbell, Shipping Emissions
Campaign Manager, Ocean Conservancy, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Salud O. Carbajal
April 14, 2021.
Hon. Salud Carbajal,
Chair,
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 2165 Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
Hon. Bob Gibbs,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 2165 Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chair Carbajal and Ranking Member Gibbs,
Ocean Conservancy would like to thank the Subcommittee on Coast
Guard and Maritime Transportation for holding this important hearing on
emissions from the maritime industry, entitled Practical Steps Toward a
Carbon-Free Maritime Industry: Updates on Fuels, Ports and Technology.
Emissions from shipping and ports demands urgent action, and we are
encouraged to see this Committee's consideration of the issue. Our
nation's ports and the shipping sector are both directly impacted by
climate change and a large contributor to air pollutants and global
greenhouse gas emissions, which impact air quality, our climate, and
our economy. Efforts to decarbonize domestic ports and make the United
States a leader in the global transition to zero emission shipping must
be part of the solution to ensure a clean energy future, create jobs
and boost the economy. As you hear from other expert witnesses and
consider infrastructure investments and policy solutions to move us
towards a decarbonized maritime industry, we would like to take the
opportunity to add our recommendations to the record for today's
hearing.
Over 80% of the world's trade by volume is carried on oceangoing
vessels, and America's ports are the key points of access for this
trade. In a given day, billions of dollars' worth of goods flow through
our ports, supporting the employment of nearly 31 million Americans in
2018.\1\ The ships that we rely on to deliver our goods to port are
responsible for an estimated 2.9% of global carbon dioxide emissions
\2\, and emissions from the sector are expected to rise by as much as
130% by 2050.\3\ In order to protect livelihoods, human health, and our
ocean, we cannot afford to delay this industry's transition to a clean
future. A zero-emission future for the sector is possible, but
significant investment will be needed for research and development to
build out true zero emission fuels, port infrastructure such as shore
power, and retrofits and construction of vessels. While this transition
is an ambitious undertaking, it is feasible, fiscally responsible and
urgently necessary. If shipping were decarbonized by 2050, it could
yield an estimated net benefit of $1.2-9.1 trillion to the global
economy, or roughly $84-637 billion for the United States alone.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ American Association of Port Authorities (2019). 2018 National
Economic Impact of the U.S. Coastal Port System: Executive Summary.
Available at: https://www.aapa-ports.org/advocating/
PRdetail.aspx?itemnumber=22306
\2\ Saul, J. (2020). Shipping's share of global carbon emissions
increases. Reuters. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-
shipping-environment-imo/shippings-share-of-global-carbon-emissions-
increases-idUSKCN2502AY
\3\ Ibid.
\4\ Michelin, M., et al. 2020. ``Opportunities for Ocean-Climate
Action in the United States.'' Report. San Francisco, CA: CEA
Consulting. Available online at: www.oursharedseas.com/
oceanclimateaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to economic benefits, decarbonizing the shipping sector
and our ports has direct impacts on air quality. Ports, at-berth
vessels and supporting equipment such as trucks are often major
producers of air pollution, disproportionately affecting lower income
communities and communities of color.\5\ In California alone, the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) estimates that ports and goods
movement are responsible for 3,700 premature deaths each year.\6\
Solutions such as installing onshore power for ships to utilize at-
berth, rather than burning fuel in their own engines alongside the
dock, serves the dual purpose of reducing carbon emissions and
improving air quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ EPA (2017). Shore Power Technology Assessment. EPA-420-R-17-
004. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ports-initiative/shore-power-
technology-assessment-us-ports
\6\ Michelin et al. 2020
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are a number of recommendations relevant to this Committee
outlined in Ocean Conservancy's recently-published report, entitled All
Aboard! How the Biden-Harris Administration Can Help Ships Kick Fossil
Fuels. As this Committee advances an infrastructure package and
considers policy solutions to decarbonize the shipping sector and our
nation's ports, we would like to highlight the recommendations below:
1. Increase funding for existing programs that can fund zero-
emission research & development, port infrastructure projects, and
construction and retrofitting of ships. This includes the following:
a. Funding for the Port Infrastructure Development Program
(PIDP) with prioritization for green port infrastructure that reduces
greenhouse gas emissions, including shore power, and replacement of
polluting equipment.
b. Funding for federal financing through MARAD's Title XI to
provide retrofits to existing vessels, including upgrades to enable
vessels to accept shore power, and provide for new construction of
zero-emission vessels.
c. Funding for MARAD's Maritime Environmental and Technical
Assistance (META) Program. The program has demonstrated success with
carrying out projects that support research, demonstration and
development of emerging technologies and initiatives to improve
environmental sustainability of the maritime sector. Increasing funding
would allow the program to support additional research into zero-
emission vessels, fuel cell applications for ships and ports, port
electrification, and energy efficiency.
2. Set federal clean ship standards with identified, progressive
targets for decarbonization of 50% by 2025, 80% by 2030 and 100% by
2035.
3. Support new grant programs through proposals such as the
Climate Smart Ports Act (CSPA), which would add a $1 billion per year
fund dedicated to improving sustainability in America's ports. Reaching
zero-emission targets and preparing ports for zero-emission ships will
require significant investment. The EPA, working with the Department of
Transportation, should establish a new fund and grant program to
jumpstart the zero-emission transition at American ports.
4. Leverage the Marine Highway Program to establish a domestic
zero-emission Marine Highway corridor. This would encourage uptake of
zero-emission technologies for shipping and ports while at the same
time relieving congestion and emissions on interstate highways.
5. Encourage the Department of Transportation to collaborate with
the Department of Energy to accelerate the research, development, and
deployment of zero emission fuels for shipping, including through ARPA-
E and the creation of an Advanced Technologies Loan Program for zero-
emission shipping.
6. Support collaboration across ports. In the long term,
collective investment by multiple ports could open the possibility of
zero emission short sea shipping by U.S. flagged ships.
7. Allow for the procurement of low and zero-emission vessels for
Maritime Training Institutes to ensure mariners can develop the
necessary skills to safely operate these ships.
8. Require port emission inventories. U.S. ports are not currently
required to conduct an annual inventory of air pollutants or greenhouse
gases. Uniform reporting of emissions is needed to set and track
compliance with zero-emission targets.
9. Establish a short-term Zero Port Pollution Tax. While public
dollars are necessary and appropriate for many infrastructure projects,
American taxpayers alone should not bear the burden. A Zero Port
Pollution Fund could support zero-emission vessel development and green
port infrastructure through a tax on deadly criteria pollutants (NOx,
SOx, and black carbon, the most dangerous component of particulate
matter), as well as greenhouse gases (notably CO2 and CH4).
10. Establish an Environmental Justice Ports Advisory Commission
or ports and shipping working group within the White House
Environmental Justice Advisory Council to prioritize frontline
community perspectives in port and shipping policy decisions.
Our nation's ports and shipping sector have a critical role to play
in our transition to a clean energy future, and Ocean Conservancy
stands ready to work with this Committee and the administration to make
zero-emission shipping and ports a reality. We encourage you to engage
all stakeholders in this crucial area of the ocean economy, including
frontline communities, as you consider our national infrastructure
needs.
Sincerely,
Daniel Hubbell,
Shipping Emissions Campaign Manager, Ocean Conservancy.
cc: The Honorable Peter DeFazio, Chair, House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
The Honorable Sam Graves, Ranking Member, House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Mr. Carbajal. With that, I now call on the ranking member
of the subcommittee, Mr. Gibbs, for an opening statement.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In 2018, the International Maritime Organization issued its
initial strategy on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
from shipping, and a revised strategy is due in 2023.
Industry has responded by beginning to develop, test, and
use new fuels and new technologies. I look forward to hearing
today what the costs are of the industrywide recapitalization
that decarbonization will require, and who will bear the cost.
I am also interested in if these changes will be done in
line with planned vessel replacements.
I am also interested in which technologies and fuels show
promise for which sectors, and whether the witnesses expect
multiple technologies and fuels to be used in the future,
instead of a single fuel.
In the past, wind-powered vessels were succeeded by coal,
which was succeeded by bunker fuel. It appears the next
transition may be to an array of fuels and technologies, rather
than the linear movement from a single dominant fuel to a
different single dominant fuel.
In addition to decarbonizing vessel fuel, efforts to reduce
air emissions are also underway at ports. Again, I am
interested in the status and cost of these efforts.
While the IMO has set goals for vessel emission standards,
what are the goals for reductions of emissions standards at our
ports? Will ocean carriers and ultimately U.S. importers and
exporters bear these costs?
I look forward to what today's witnesses have to tell us
about methods, costs, and any efficiencies to be gained through
efforts to decarbonize vessel and port operations.
[Mr. Gibbs' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Gibbs, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Ohio, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation
Thank you, Chair Carbajal, for holding this hearing today.
In 2018, the International Maritime Organization issued its initial
strategy on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from shipping,
and a revised strategy is due in 2023. Industry has responded by
beginning to develop, test, and use new fuels and new technologies.
I look forward to hearing today what the costs are of the industry-
wide recapitalization that decarbonization will require and who will
bear that cost. I'm also interested if these changes will be done in
line with planned vessel replacements.
I am also interested in which technologies and fuels show promise
for which sectors, and whether the witnesses expect multiple
technologies and fuels to be used in the future instead of a single
fuel. In the past, sail was succeeded by coal, which was succeeded by
bunker fuel. It appears the next transition may be to an array of fuels
and technologies rather than the linear movement from a single dominant
fuel to a different single dominant fuel.
In addition to decarbonizing vessel fuel, efforts to reduce air
emissions are also underway at ports. Again, I am interested in the
status and costs of those efforts. While IMO has set goals for vessel
emission standards, what are the goals for reductions of emissions
standards at ports? Will ocean carriers and ultimately U.S. importers
and exporters bear these costs?
I look forward to what today's witnesses have to tell us about
methods, costs, and any efficiencies to be gained through efforts to
decarbonize vessel and ports operations.
Mr. Gibbs. Again, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Gibbs.
Now I would like to recognize Chairman DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
having this hearing on this really interesting and important
topic. I think I have tasked every subcommittee to look at ways
to reduce carbon emissions within their jurisdiction, and this
is an important contribution to that effort.
With COVID-19 disrupting global cargo, the role of the
maritime industry has become more apparent to many more people
over the last year--and then, of course, the high publicity
with the blockage of the Suez Canal by Ever Given.
I think now that folks are becoming aware that the majority
of everything they consume is involved in maritime
transportation, that they will be a little more focused on the
industry in the future. And I think this gives us an
opportunity to begin to deal with the industry's carbon
pollution.
They are already moving away from the dirty bunker fuels
under an international agreement. They are already the most
fuel-efficient way, per ton, to move freight. But there are
possibilities to move much more in a direction to reduce their
carbon emissions. They are 3 percent of the world's industrial
emissions now, and could be 10 percent by 2050 without
significant changes.
There is a lot of interesting research going on. There is a
company in my State called Element One, and their technology
utilizes seawater--the most, I guess, plentiful thing on
Earth--and methanol to produce hydrogen, to run hydrogen fuel
cells, and run a hydrogen fuel-cell ship. This has tremendous
potential. Fifty percent carbon reduction, if you use standard
methanol, and, obviously, carbon neutral if you use a renewable
methanol.
Our ports, as the chairman mentioned, coming from southern
California, they are already hard at work to try and eliminate
carbon pollution in the ports with the drayage trucks, with the
equipment that moves containers around, and other operations.
They are looking at electrification. It is capital intensive.
And I am sure that our international competitors are going to
be subsidizing this, and I think there is a role for the
Federal Government to be involved.
There are many steps that we could take: grant funding for
ports looking to add shoreside power hookups for vessels to run
on electricity while they are at dock, to purchase electric
cargo handling equipment, and to construct microgrids that
integrate clean energy sources which could involve offshore
wind or tidal power or wave power, given the situation of our
particular ports.
We want to be the innovator in these areas, we want to lead
the world, and we want to begin to export these technologies,
just like we used to lead the world in so many things before.
That is also part of the President's plan: to restore our
international competitiveness instead of being a country that
is totally dependent upon imports; to be again as someone who
is more focused on exporting technology and creating jobs here
at home.
I think there are a lot of opportunities here for long-
lasting, middle-class jobs: longshore mariners, shipbuilders--
an industry that we need, is essential, as a maritime nation.
And with these new technologies, we could be leading the world.
There is no one-size-fits-all for this. Today in the
hearing, we will hear of a number of different approaches. And
I appreciate, again, the opportunity to become educated more on
the subject.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chair Carbajal, and thank you for having a hearing on
the important topic of reducing emissions and decarbonizing the
maritime industry.
This hearing builds upon our efforts across all modes of
transportation to reduce carbon emissions in order to address climate
change. This hearing comes at a crucial time as we aim towards Building
Back Better, creating American jobs, and becoming global leaders in new
technologies.
With the COVID-19 pandemic disrupting global cargo movements, the
role of the maritime industry is front and center. Between the EVER
GIVEN's blockage of the Suez Canal and the major backlog on the West
Coast, the American public is newly aware of the importance of the
maritime supply chain. I hope that this presents an opportunity to
discuss the industry's greenhouse gas emissions and practical ways to
reduce them.
Climate change is real and we're already starting to see the
consequences. The international maritime industry accounts for 3
percent of the world's carbon emissions with the potential to grow to
10 percent by 2050 if significant changes are not made. The maritime
industry cannot afford to waste any time; we must decarbonize now.
We often hear of electric vehicles or revitalizing our energy grid,
but what most fail to realize is the potential that exists within our
maritime infrastructure. Industry is already hard at work researching
and developing vessel infrastructure for the alternative fuels of the
future, such as hydrogen, ammonia, methanol, and battery power.
Some American companies, such as Element One in my home state of
Oregon, are developing new technologies to utilize hydrogen fuel cells
aboard ships using seawater and methanol--this technology is now
available at various re-fueling hubs across the country and world.
Ports are building out and investing in critical shore-side
infrastructure to electrify their operations, and states are providing
some financial aid to help cover the upfront costs. Projects such as
these are capital-intensive and in their infancy, so federal investment
may be necessary. I have no doubt that our foreign competitors will be
subsidizing their maritime industries.
The Biden administration is prioritizing emissions reduction across
transportation sectors, and international agreements are setting
targets for maritime carbon emissions reduction by 2050. But now is not
the time for us to take the back seat; Congress needs to implement
strong and progressive measures to reach the goal of a fully
decarbonized maritime industry.
There are many steps we can take to support this vital work. For
instance, we can increase grant funding for ports looking to add shore-
side power hookups for vessels to run on electricity, to purchase
electric cargo handling equipment, and to construct microgrids that
integrate clean energy sources such as offshore wind.
We must identify ways to position the United States as a leader in
new technologies across the transportation sector. Doing so will create
lasting, middle class jobs for longshore workers, mariners, and
shipbuilders as well as jobs associated with the research, development,
and maintenance of new technologies.
Today, I am excited to hear from an excellent panel of folks who
are leading the charge on decarbonizing the maritime industry. There is
no one size fits all, and we know there will be different solutions for
different maritime problems. That's why it is our job to support a wide
array of practical yet progressive steps as we steer the shipping
industry toward a decarbonized future. And while we will hear some
success stories today, I want to remind us all that there is still much
more to be done to reach the goal of zero carbon emissions.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio. I would now like
to welcome the witnesses on our panel.
First we have Mr. John Butler, president and chief
executive officer of World Shipping Council.
Second we have Ms. Kristin Decas, chief executive officer
and port director, the Port of Hueneme.
Next we have Mr. Morgan Fanberg, president of Glosten.
Next we have Dr. Lee Kindberg, director of environment and
sustainability with Maersk.
Last we have Dr. Dan Rutherford, program director and
regional lead for International Council on Clean
Transportation.
Thank you for being here today, and I look forward to
hearing your testimony.
Before we begin I would like to turn it over and recognize
my colleague, Representative Julia Brownley, who represents the
district to the south of my district, to say a few words about
Ms. Decas and the Port of Hueneme, which I also adopt as
partially my port, because they are right on the border of her
district and my district.
And with that, Representative Brownley.
Ms. Brownley. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing
me to be here this morning to introduce Kristin Decas, a
constituent of mine and the CEO and port director of the Oxnard
Harbor District and Port of Hueneme and Ventura County.
You could not have chosen a better witness for today's
hearing, which is appropriately entitled, ``Practical Steps
Toward a Carbon-Free Maritime Industry: Updates on Fuels,
Ports, and Technology.'' Without a doubt, Ms. Decas is one of
the Nation's leading experts in what our Nation's ports are
doing to address the threats posed by the climate crisis.
Ms. Decas has been instrumental in working to strengthen
the Port of Hueneme's commitment to staying on the leading edge
of environmental stewardship. Through her extraordinary
leadership, the Port of Hueneme became the first port in
California to earn the Green Marine certification in 2017. This
is a voluntary industry program that looks at multiple
environmental performance indicators at ports, including air
emissions, prevention of spills and leakages, community
impacts, and environmental leadership.
Under her stewardship, the port has installed plug-in power
systems for ships that come into the port, so that they can
turn off their diesel engines and reduce carbon emissions. The
port is also proactively developing its Port of Hueneme
Reducing Emissions, Supporting Health Clean Air Plan, in
partnership with our local air quality regulatory agency, the
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District.
This port has also implemented new technologies and best
practices, including a new zero-waste policy, phasing in high-
mast LED lighting to reduce energy use and light pollution,
overhauling a harbor patrol boat to reduce emissions, switching
to compostable supplies, and hosting zero-waste events, and a
lot more.
The port has been dogged in their pursuit of new grant
opportunities to help the port build greener infrastructure and
procure zero-emission cargo handling equipment. And Congress
has a critical role to play to ensure our ports have access to
necessary Federal resources to help them transition towards a
cleaner, greener future.
And I was delighted to have the chairman of the full
committee, Peter DeFazio, visit the Port of Hueneme. And as the
Port of Hueneme's Representative in Congress, along with our
subcommittee chair here today, I could not be more proud of the
work that is being done by the port commissioners and by Ms.
Decas and her team of talented professionals to keep our local
port clean and green. And I am very proud to be here today to
introduce all of you to a wonderful leader, and my constituent,
Ms. Kristin Decas.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity, and I yield
back.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Representative Brownley. Let me
just say I grew up in Oxnard, breathing a lot of those
emissions. So I am grateful for the port becoming the greenest
port in the Nation, and helping alleviate the public health
concerns that are associated sometimes with some of our ports
and neighboring communities.
With that, we will proceed to our witnesses.
Without objection, our witnesses' full statements will be
included in the record.
Since your written testimony has been made a part of the
record, the subcommittee requests that you please limit your
oral testimony to 5 minutes.
Mr. Butler, you may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN W. BUTLER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, WORLD SHIPPING COUNCIL; KRISTIN DECAS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER AND PORT DIRECTOR, PORT OF HUENEME-OXNARD HARBOR
DISTRICT; MORGAN M. FANBERG, P.E., PRESIDENT, GLOSTEN, INC.; B.
LEE KINDBERG, Ph.D., GCB.D, HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND
SUSTAINABILITY-NORTH AMERICA, MAERSK; AND DAN RUTHERFORD,
Ph.D., MARINE AND AVIATION PROGRAM DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL
COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Butler. Chairman Carbajal, Ranking Member Gibbs, full
committee Chairman DeFazio, members of the subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify today. I am John Butler,
president and CEO of the World Shipping Council.
Our members provide 90 percent of global containership
capacity, and offer a significant percentage of the world's
vehicle carrier fleet.
Voice. The timer----
Mr. Carbajal. Please proceed. Sorry about that.
Mr. Butler. The subcommittee's focus today on practical
solutions to decarbonization of shipping is right on point. We
face a huge challenge.
Over the coming decades, we need to convert the world's
international fleet to low- or no-carbon fuels and associated
technologies, and we have to do that in a way that does not
undermine the essential transportation services that make the
global economy function. I would like to emphasize two points
today.
My first point is that, although there are some promising
low- and zero-carbon fuels and technologies under
consideration, we simply do not yet know which of these options
will end up being viable for the long haul. This is not a
matter of simply picking an available fuel and getting on with
it.
The fact is that all of the future fuels under
consideration have significant issues that have to be overcome
in terms of safety, energy density, life cycle, carbon profile,
and other challenges. In order to reach a point where
investment capital will flow to create fuel production and
delivery infrastructure for alternative fuels, we need much
greater technological certainty about what fuels and
technologies will turn out to be truly sustainable, from an
operational, safety, environmental, and economic perspective.
To get that technological and investment certainty, we must
accelerate the necessary research and development now. Current
R&D efforts are fragmented, and dedicated funding and global
scale are missing. To address that R&D gap, the shipping
industry in December of 2019 proposed that the International
Maritime Organization create the International Maritime
Research and Development Board, or IMRB.
The IMRB would be a research coordination and funding
effort paid for by industry that would deploy $5 billion over
10 years to identify alternative fuels and move them towards
commercial viability. That proposal has now been cosponsored by
10 IMO member countries, along with the entire shipping
industry, and the latest version of that very detailed proposal
is attached to my written testimony.
United States research institutions would be well placed to
participate in the work funded by the IMRB, and there will be
collateral clean air and technology development benefits beyond
GHG reduction that would come from the work that the IMRB can
do. We strongly urge the United States to back this proposal
when it is next discussed in the IMO in June of this year.
My second and final point is that it is critical for the
United States to engage actively both at the IMO and with other
nations. Decisions are being made today that will affect the
industry and the country's international trade for the
foreseeable future, and we have to get this right.
One threat to a global solution is that the European Union
is proposing to apply its internal carbon pricing scheme to
ships operating far beyond EU waters. That raises trade and
sovereignty concerns, and it threatens to undermine the ability
of the IMO to implement a global solution. That EU proposal
will be released in more detail probably in June of this year,
and it is worth the attention of the United States Government.
I thank you for your time, and I look forward to your
questions.
[Mr. Butler's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John W. Butler, President and Chief Executive
Officer, World Shipping Council
1. Introduction: The World Shipping Council and the Liner Shipping
Industry
Chairman Carbajal, Ranking Member Gibbs, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify today. My name is
John Butler. I am President and CEO of the World Shipping Council \1\
(``WSC'' or the ``Council''). WSC is a non-profit trade association
whose goal is to provide a coordinated voice for the liner shipping
industry in its work with policymakers, the public, and other industry
groups with an interest in international transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A complete list of WSC members and more information about the
Council can be found at www.worldshipping.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WSC members comprise an industry that has invested hundreds of
billions of dollars in the vessels, equipment, and marine terminals
that are in worldwide operation today. Approximately 1,200 ocean-going
liner vessels, mostly containerships, make more than 28,000 calls at
ports in the United States during a given year--almost 80 vessel calls
a day. This industry provides American importers and exporters with
door-to-door delivery service for almost any commodity to and from
roughly 190 countries. Approximately 35 million TEU \2\ of
containerized cargo are currently imported into or exported from the
United States each year. The container shipping industry is one of the
most important facilitators of the nation's growth and ongoing economic
activity. Ocean shipping is also--by far--the most fuel-efficient form
of transportation on the planet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A TEU is a twenty-foot equivalent unit. Most containers are 40
feet in length and equal 2 TEUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provided below for the subcommittee's consideration are a
discussion of the industry's efforts to transition to zero or near-zero
emission fuels and a description of the industry proposal to establish
an International Maritime Research and Development Board (IMRB) and
International Maritime Research Fund (IMRF) to accelerate the research
and development work needed to create the technologies that are
critical for ships to use low and zero-carbon fuels. WSC staff would
welcome the opportunity to discuss these subjects further with
subcommittee Members or staff.
2. Reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions and the Technological
Challenge of Transforming the Global Fleet
The Subcommittee's interest in reducing GHG emissions shipping is
indeed timely. The issue of reducing GHG emissions is today the single
largest issue under consideration by the International Maritime
Organization (IMO), the specialized United Nations body that regulates
international shipping and in which the U.S. plays an active role.
International ocean shipping, including all sectors (container,
bulk, tanker, etc.), carries over 80% of the world's international
trade and generates between 2-3% of global CO2 emissions. In 2018, the
IMO adopted a resolution that set two goals for GHG reductions from
shipping. The first goal is a 40% increase in overall fleet efficiency
by 2030. The second goal is a 50% reduction in absolute emissions by
2050 (versus a 2008 baseline), with emissions to be reduced to zero or
near zero as soon as possible after 2050.
It will likely be possible to meet the IMO's 2030 GHG goal through
a combination of the mandatory `Energy Efficiency Design Index'
requirements for new ships that became effective in 2013, and new
efficiency regulations covering the existing fleet that are expected to
be adopted by the IMO in 2020. The existence of a highly competitive
liner shipping market, the fact that fuel is the biggest variable cost
for vessel operators, and increasing societal and customer requirements
to reduce emissions provide vessel operators with powerful incentives
to make their operations as efficient as possible and will help reach
that goal.
While the IMO's 2030 GHG goal can be met by operational and design
modifications applicable to a fleet that remains fossil-fuel based, the
2050 reduction goal, and the move thereafter to a zero or near-zero GHG
emission status for ocean shipping, cannot be met by an industry that
uses fossil fuels as its propulsion base.
In order to meet these ambitious 2050 and beyond goals, it is
imperative that new fuels and related propulsion, fuel storage, and
fuel infrastructure systems are engineered and deployed. Moreover, the
transformation in the fuels used by ocean-going vessels must begin in
the near future in order for the change-over to occur in time to meet
the IMO's deadlines. This is because ocean vessels have a commercial
lifespan of 20-25 years, which means that investment decisions made
today will be with us for a generation. Therefore, we must act now to
develop new fuels and related technologies if we are to avoid locking
in fossil-fuel based vessels for a period that extends beyond the 2050
target date for the most drastic GHG reductions.
The challenge the industry faces is that while there are promising
possibilities for the fuels of the future, none of the candidate fuels
available today can be used to power large ships serving trans-oceanic
routes. Hydrogen, ammonia, and other fuels have been identified as
potential replacements for fossil fuels in marine applications, but
these fuels present safety, storage, handling, and production
challenges that must be overcome before they are practically and safely
available for widespread use. There may also be additional zero GHG
emission options that have not yet received the same level of
examination.
Vessels that sail across oceans must obviously carry their fuel
with them, and that means fuels must be safe to handle and carry, must
be energy-dense so that they do not displace too much cargo space, and
must be widely available. All of these criteria represent technical
challenges that will require substantial effort and engineering
expertise to resolve. The solutions to these challenges will not simply
appear by themselves.
3. The Proposal for an International Maritime Research and Development
Board
To address these challenges, WSC and all of the world's major
shipping organizations \3\ in December of 2019, submitted to the IMO a
comprehensive proposal to coordinate and fund the research,
development, and demonstration work necessary to decarbonize shipping.
Last month, an updated version of that proposal, now also co-sponsored
by ten IMO member states, was submitted to the IMO. A copy of the
updated proposal, which will be discussed at the IMO's Marine
Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting in June 2021, is
attached as Exhibit A. The proposal would set up an International
Maritime Research and Development Board (IMRB) that would manage a $5-6
billion industry-funded research and development (R&D) effort over a 10
to 12-year period to identify the fuels and related technologies of the
future that will be needed to meet the IMO's aggressive decarbonization
goals. The shipping industry would fund this R&D effort through
mandatory contributions to the International Maritime Research and
Development Fund (IMRF) via a proposed per ton contribution of GHG
emissions to generate approximately $500 million per year. To track GHG
emissions and contributions, the IMRB and IMRF would employ a fuel oil
data collection system already established by IMO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See page 1 of Exhibit A for the list of co-sponsors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The critical importance of this R&D effort cannot be overstated.
Without this industry funding of $5-$6 billion to accelerate R&D, there
is no apparent technological pathway that would allow the industry to
reach the IMO 2050 and beyond GHG targets. Put simply, the research and
development will not occur on its own; it requires a coordinated
``push'' in the form of a well-funded and comprehensive international
effort.
Moreover, increased technological certainty that comes from the
IMRB R&D will provide increased investment certainty as it becomes
clear which near-zero and zero GHG emissions technologies will be worth
investing in the long term. Creating such technologies, which provide
practicable alternatives to fossil-fuel based propulsion, are also
essential for market-based measures such as carbon pricing to work.
Carbon pricing is designed to motivate the industry to change behavior
to cleaner technologies by adding a cost to the continued use of fossil
fuels. But carbon pricing can only function if alternatives to fossil
fuels are practically available at commercial scale. Without such fuels
and related technologies, market-based measures such as carbon pricing
only add cost without reducing emissions.
The IMRB proposal is at an advanced level of development, including
detailed organizational plans, a viable funding mechanism, and proposed
amendments to MARPOL Annex VI to provide the legal vehicle for the
program. There is no other existing proposal in the world that can
deliver the necessary research and development work in the time that we
have to get this work done. Any further delay in doing that work will
increase technological and investment uncertainty and make the process
of decarbonization more expensive, with increased risk of stranded
investment. The United States' support for the IMRB proposal at the
June MEPC meeting will be critical to its approval and success. We
therefore encourage the U.S. Congress to urge the Administration to
communicate its support for IMRB at the upcoming IMO MEPC meeting and
at other international engagements on climate change.
4. Discussion of the IMRB Proposal
As mentioned above, the baseline facts that the international
shipping industry faces with respect to GHG reduction may be summarized
as follows:
The 174 member countries that participate in the IMO have
already set ambitious goals and deadlines for reductions in GHGs from
shipping.
The most ambitious of the IMO's GHG reduction targets
cannot be met by a global vessel fleet that relies primarily or even
substantially on fossil fuels.
Although there are promising fuels and related
technologies that may be practically applicable to trans-oceanic
vessels at some point in the future, there are no low carbon or zero-
carbon fuel/propulsion systems available today that can be used by
large trans-oceanic vessels.
Because ocean-going vessels are long-lived assets (20-25
years), we must move as quickly as possible to develop and deploy low-
carbon and zero-carbon propulsion systems and fuels to avoid stranded
assets and delays in implementing next generation technologies.
As the industry evaluated this set of facts, it became clear that
an essential component in meeting the IMO's deadlines for reducing GHGs
from international shipping is to create and support a dedicated
research and development effort to identify and deploy practical
application technologies that can replace fossil fuel propulsion for
large ships. It also became apparent that, although there are a number
of R&D efforts underway around the world, many of these are focused on
short-sea applications or are not of a size and scale to be able to
develop global solutions within the required timeline. Our focus
therefore turned to the question of how the IMO could be used as the
organizing body to create and sustain an R&D effort that could deliver
the required solutions.
The IMO is the only body in the world that is capable of bringing
together the elements that are necessary for the successful creation
and maintenance of an R&D effort of the size necessary to produce
results within the time required. This is the case for several reasons:
The IMO is the only existing body with the reach to
coordinate a global R&D effort focused on commercial maritime
transport.
Any global R&D effort must have a mandatory industry
financial contribution mechanism in order to generate necessary
funding, avoid free riders, and maintain a level commercial playing
field.
In order to implement a sustainable funding mechanism,
any effective industry-wide R&D program will need to have access to the
IMO's fuel consumption database, as well as a defined communication
procedure with flag states, both of which the IMO already has in place.
Once we determined that the magnitude of the challenge and the need
for quick action required a substantial and sustained R&D effort to
identify and develop the propulsion systems of the future, and we
determined that the IMO was the right body to organize that effort, we
began crafting a proposal to the IMO that describes how this critical
R&D work can be undertaken and funded. After a period of over two years
during which we consulted with IMO member states, environmental groups,
technical experts, academics, and other industry groups, on December
18, 2019, WSC and seven other international shipping organizations
submitted to the IMO an initial proposal to create the IMRB. IMO
considered this proposal and asked for comments on specific questions
raised by Member States.
On March 10, 2021, WSC and ten IMO member states and industry co-
sponsors submitted a detailed and expanded IMRB proposal to IMO. The
revised proposal is to be considered at upcoming meetings of IMO's
Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) in June and November.
A copy of the March 10, 2021 submission is attached to this testimony
as Exhibit A.
Boiled down to its essence, the IMRB's decarbonization R&D effort
would be a global, targeted grant program funded by a mandatory
contribution based on each ton of vessel GHG emissions. The IMRB
proposal is detailed and addresses a number of issues regarding the
purposes and management of the IMRB that will have to be considered in
order for the proposed R&D structure and effort to yield the necessary
results. Among the issues addressed by the proposal are:
1) R&D objectives of the IMRB;
2) Funding of the IMRB, including a structure that ensures that
all funds are delivered directly to the IMRB, with no involvement of
member country tax authorities;
3) Governance of the IMRB, balancing high-level IMO oversight with
the need for an independent, knowledgeable board of directors and
professional staff that is nimble and adaptable in deploying the assets
of the IMRB to obtain effective R&D results;
4) Management of grants and contracts;
5) Provisions on conflict of interest;
6) Treatment of intellectual property generated through research
efforts, balancing the need to incentivize participation by qualified
experts, companies, and institutions with the need for the results of
IMRB-funded research to be made broadly available in order to encourage
competition in developing next-generation fuels and supporting
technologies; and,
7) Dissolution of the IMRB upon completion of its work.
The IMRB proposal, if adopted by the IMO, would substantially
accelerate and increase the scope of R&D work that is essential to
decarbonizing shipping. That research is not occurring today on a
schedule or a scale that will yield results in time to meet the
schedule set by the IMO or at the speed increasingly demanded by
society at large, and there is no indication that any one company or
any one country would be willing or able to undertake such a research
effort on its own. Luckily, we have in the IMO an existing
international organization with global participation that is already
deeply involved in the issue of decarbonizing shipping. All that is
required in order to bring this powerful R&D tool into being is the
political will to consider and adopt the IMRB proposal.
We are optimistic that, as more IMO member states understand the
IMRB proposal, the more they will support it. In addition to the fact
that this is the only proposal currently before the IMO that seeks to
directly implement decarbonization through research and engineering
solutions, making this industry-funded investment in R&D makes business
and policy sense. The alternatives to finding technological solutions
that allow the ocean transportation industry to ultimately eliminate
its carbon emissions are to either reduce the transportation services
that support world trade or to continue on a path of increasingly
burdensome and low-yielding regulations of a fossil-fuel powered
industry. Neither of those outcomes--artificially constraining trade or
chasing ineffective regulation--is desirable. Finding non-fossil-fuel
solutions will allow international ocean shipping to continue to grow
to serve expanding world trade, thus providing a sustainable path for
both climate and economy. It is possible to de-couple trade and GHG
emissions, and for the former to grow while the latter declines.
5. The Looming Concern of European Union Unilateral GHG Regulation
Even as the IMO continues to work on global solutions, the European
Union (EU) is unilaterally seeking to extend its own Emissions Trading
System (ETS) to the global shipping sector by imposing extraterritorial
GHG regulations on the last voyage leg into the EU, and the first
voyage leg out of the EU, for all ships that arrive at or depart from
EU ports \4\. The EU's GHG rules would, for example, apply to all
vessels, including U.S. owned and/or flagged vessels operating within
U.S. jurisdictional waters and on the high seas if those vessels also
called at EU ports directly from U.S. ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ European Parliament 2019-2024, Amendments adopted by the
European Parliament on 16 September 2020 on the proposal for a
regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending
Regulation (EU) 2015/757 in order to take appropriate account of the
global data collection system for ship fuel oil consumption data
(COM(2019)0038--C8-0043/2019--2019/0017(COD), (First reading) [European
Parliament Amendments], available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/
legislative-train/theme-environment-public-health-and-food-safety-envi/
file-revision-of-the-eu-system-to-monitor-report-and-verify-co2-
emissions-from-ships
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EU's effort is in sharp contrast to the IMO's multilateral
effort and has the potential not only to upset the IMO's role as the
regulator of international shipping, but also to open the door for
additional nation states to impose their own unique GHG regulations on
global ocean carriers that call at their ports. Such approaches would
create an impossible patchwork of GHG regulations applicable to ships
carrying U.S. and international commerce to jurisdictions around the
globe. WSC's paper examining the potential impacts of an EU ETS is
attached as Exhibit B \5\. It is therefore critical for the IMO, with
its global reach, to regulate GHG emissions from international
shipping, and we encourage the United States to engage with the EU to
limit application of its ETS scheme to intra-EU maritime transportation
and to continue to support the IMO's efforts on maritime
decarbonization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ A copy of the WSC paper on the EU ETS is also available at:
https://www.worldshipping.org/public-statements/regulatory-comments/
WSC_EU_ETS_Discussion_Paper_10_
September_2020_Final.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Conclusion
International shipping is by far the most efficient means of cargo
transportation on the planet, and advances in ship design, size, and
operational strategies have allowed containerships, for example, to
increase their efficiency by as much as 50% over the past decade. These
are impressive advances, but the fact is that over time these advances
will be overtaken by trade growth, and it is not possible in the long
run to reach the world's decarbonization goals for shipping by
continuing to burn fossil fuels.
Because we do not yet know what specific fuels and related
technologies will replace fossil fuels, the next logical step is to do
the research to answer that question and to make the next generation of
fuels available for commercial deployment in the world's fleet. The
IMRB proposal to the IMO provides the funding and the structure to make
that essential R&D work happen, and we look forward to working with the
IMO member states to bring the IMRB into existence. We would welcome
the active support of the United States in this vital work to reduce
global shipping's impact on climate change.
exhibit a
``Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships: Proposed Draft Amendments to
MARPOL Annex VI,'' by the Marine Environment Protection Committee of
the International Maritime Organization
[The 36-page document is retained in committee files and is available
online at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/PW/PW07/20210415/111423/HHRG-
117-PW07-Wstate-ButlerJ-20210415-SD001.pdf]
exhibit b
``EU ETS Discussion Paper,'' September 10, 2020, by the World Shipping
Council
[The 13-page document is retained in committee files and is available
online at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/PW/PW07/20210415/111423/HHRG-
117-PW07-Wstate-ButlerJ-20210415-SD001.pdf]
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Butler, you are right on time.
We will proceed next with Ms. Kristin Decas.
Ms. Decas. Good morning, Chairman Carbajal, Ranking Member
Gibbs, and members of the subcommittee, and Congresswoman
Brownley. My name is Kristin Decas, and I am CEO and port
director of the Port of Hueneme in southern California. On
behalf of my Board of Harbor Commissioners, I would like to
express my appreciation for the opportunity to appear before
the subcommittee today.
We are looking at a moment in history, where timely action
by Congress promises to reshape the future of our Nation
through Federal investment in transportation systems. Such an
action will allow investments of taxpayer dollars to go where
they are needed most: to the creation of family-sustaining jobs
with higher-than-average wages for disadvantaged communities.
The outcome will be the transformation of social equity, the
advancement of a carbon-free transportation network, and growth
in trade, ensuring our Nation is the most competitive in the
world.
It is critical to note the importance ports have in driving
local and regional economies. The total economic value
generated by U.S. coastal ports totals $5.4 trillion, roughly
26 percent of GDP. U.S. port activity employs over 30.8 million
Americans. Last year the Port of Hueneme's trade with the world
reached $10.85 billion, generating over $1.7 billion in
economic impact, and creating over 15,800 trade-related jobs.
This profound economic stimulus does have an impact on our
environment and community. And as with any negative, there is a
cure and a pathway forward. California ports not only lead the
Nation, but the world in environmental achievement. California
ports are the only ports that require refrigerated cargo ships
to electrify at berth, making them zero emission at port
complexes. Collectively, California's 11 deepwater seaports
realized emission reductions on the order of 80 percent in PM,
90 percent in SOx, and 50 percent in NOx.
At the Port of Hueneme, we more than live up to this legacy
of environmental achievement and tradition. Since 2008, the
port achieved an 85-percent reduction in diesel PM. In 2012, we
completed a comprehensive environmental framework that sets
goals in air quality, water quality, marine resources, soil and
sediment, energy, and climate change. In 2014, we installed our
shoreside power system to enable ships to plug in at berth. In
partnership with Tesla, we installed five battery packs to
purchase power at off-peak hours and store it for daytime use.
We are currently engineering and installing new electrical
infrastructure to power hybrid electric mobile cranes, zero-
emission trucks, and zero-emission yard tractors. Our board
approved the purchase of the first two zero-emission, heavy-
duty port trucks in Ventura County. These American-made, Kalmar
battery-powered trucks will move containers of fresh produce
around the port, while producing zero pollution.
I would now like to respectfully recommend the course of
action Congress should take to propel the future of the goods
movement industry to a sustainable and decarbonized
transportation sector.
Assess and invest. Assess, and assess, and build the
blueprint. Abraham Lincoln once said, ``Give me six hours to
chop down a tree, and I will spend the first four sharpening
the ax.'' There needs to be a true understanding of all the
complexities of a paradigm shift to decarbonization. This
requires the development of a blueprint to effectively
transition to a new fuel economy, which includes a nationwide
feasibility and cost analysis.
For example, the capacity of our Nation's utility networks,
infrastructure availability, and upgrade costs need to be fully
evaluated and understood. At the Port of Hueneme, the
forecasted cost for electric infrastructure is $28.5 million.
This cost does not include the utility company's own
infrastructure improvements that will be required, estimated to
run $50-plus million.
Furthermore, the fees and building costs of retrofitting
vessels and other private-sector assets need to be factored
into the plan. The Port of Hueneme is one example of millions
across the country where these dynamics need to be flushed out,
and the roadmap defined, so the investments made by the Federal
Government are well informed by true cost, science, and
technological viability.
Invest. Invest in maritime and transportation
infrastructure. For California ports alone, experts forecast
the cost to replace current equipment with zero-emission or
near-zero-emission equipment to exceed $23 billion and $35
billion to replace current equipment with electrified, high-
density equipment and supporting infrastructure, all prior to
utility upgrades. So invest. Invest in a zero-emission future.
Invest in a new alternative fuel economy. Invest in resilient
infrastructure, and invest in a just transition. Infrastructure
investments in places like the Port of Hueneme and Oxnard will
foster positive social reform and racial equity.
In closing, California ports such as the Port of Hueneme
are pioneers of testing, innovating, and taking on risk of
implementing new technologies that lower emissions. As early
adopters, California ports have expertise and best practices in
what works. Today the Port of Hueneme is excited to partner
with you to help prosper Federal action to assess and invest in
our future.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony.
[Ms. Decas' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kristin Decas, Chief Executive Officer and Port
Director, Port of Hueneme-Oxnard Harbor District
Good morning Chairman Carbajal, Ranking Member Gibbs and members of
the subcommittee. My name is Kristin Decas, and I am the Chief
Executive Officer and Port Director of the Port of Hueneme-Oxnard
Harbor District in Southern California.
On behalf of the President of the Board of Harbor Commissioners,
Jason Hodge and my entire Board, I would like to express my
appreciation for the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee
today to discuss the vital role ports play in our economy and the
actions the Port of Hueneme is taking towards making our Port the
greenest port in the country.
We are looking at a moment in history where timely action by
Congress promises to reshape the future of our nation through federal
investment in our ports, roads, bridges, rail, airports, and transit
systems. Such action will ensure investments of taxpayer dollars go
where they are needed most, to the creation of family sustaining jobs
with higher-than-average wages for disadvantaged communities. The
outcome will be the transformation of social and racial equity, the
advancement of a carbon free transportation network and growth in
trade, making our nation the most competitive in the world.
It is critical to note the importance ports have in driving local
and regional economies by providing the gateway for delivery of goods
and employment opportunities. According to Martin Associates, an
internationally recognized economic and transportation consulting firm,
prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic the total economic value
generated in terms of revenue to businesses, personal income and
economic output at U.S. coastal ports accounts for $5.4 trillion,
roughly 26 percent of GDP. This research also showed that over 30.8
million Americans are employed in jobs generated as a result of port
activity. Ports also generate significant tax revenue, with $47.1
billion of direct, induced and indirect federal, state and local tax
revenue created through the economic activity taking place at ports
across the nation.
This profound economic stimulus does have an impact on our
environment and community, and as with any negative, there is a cure
and pathway forward. To deliver cargo from the dock to the consumer
requires heavy equipment, which necessitates a significant use of
energy to ensure efficient goods movement. This activity has led to
historical environmental, social and racial equity issues for
communities adjacent to ports, known as ``sacrifice zones.'' Globally
companies and nations are stepping up and pivoting to sustainable
energy sources and zero emission equipment. The future of the US
economy, which consumer consumption of goods is the main driver and
over 90% of goods transit through Ports, relies on keeping pace with
other global partners in technology and climate solutions. Federal
investment is vital to implementing climate mitigation, sustaining
existing jobs, driving new jobs in innovation and technology and
accelerating the movement to a decarbonized transportation system. The
Port of Hueneme is at the nexus of this movement and an excellent model
of how federal investment in port complexes can foster economic
prosperity, especially in underserved communities, and at the same time
lead the effort toward a carbon free maritime industry.
For the purpose of background, the Port of Hueneme, an official US
Port of Entry located within Ventura County, is the fourth largest
California deep water cargo seaport and plays a crucial role in the
vitality of the local, state and national economy. Naval Base Ventura
County, a strategic military port, and the Port share the federal
channel entrance and harbor. We have a rich history of partnership and
joint use. The Port was initially built to support the agricultural
sector in Ventura County. Today, Port of Hueneme serves as a top
strategic auto and refrigerated cargo hub on the US West Coast,
situated within sixty miles north of the Los Angeles metropolitan area,
the largest population center on the West Coast with approximately 14
million people. Trade related businesses operating out of the Port make
it the County's fourth largest employer and a leading economic force in
the region.
As one of the state's strategic intermodal transportation ports,
the Port provides the County with competitive advantages to attract
private investment while creating family sustaining jobs. Last year
Port of Hueneme's trade with the world reached a total of $10.85
billion in value. Exports totaled $1.22 billion and imports reached
$9.64 billion. The $10.85 billion in annual cargo, generates over $1.7
billion in economic impact and creates over 15,800 trade related
direct, induced, indirect, and influenced jobs. Annually, trade
activity resulting from the Port currently yields on average $119
million in state, county and local tax revenues which support vital
community services. The Port closed fiscal year 2020 with a recorded
total of 1.62 million cargo tons translating to only a slight 1.8%
decrease in overall Port volumes despite COVID-19 caused shipment
slowdowns. Of note, the modest 1.8% loss in tonnage follows a record-
breaking fiscal year 2019. During the ongoing congestion crisis facing
larger ports, the Port of Hueneme serves as a resiliency hub handling
citrus exports to Asia.
The Port of Hueneme has performed solidly even in times of economic
slowdown. During the contraction of Ventura County's economic output
between 2016 and 2017, according to a report by the Ventura County
Civic Alliance, jobs at the Port grew 9.2% from 2015 to 2017,
demonstrating the Port severing as a regional economic engine even when
the rest of the economy was lagging. GDP data from the US Bureau of
Economic Analysis shows that Ventura County's trade sector realized .4%
growth compared to .2% in the state of California and .16% in Los
Angeles County during this same period. The US Bureau of Economic
Analysis measures local GDP performance by 12 major industry sectors.
Ventura County's lowest performing sectors over the last decade
include, ``nondurable manufacturing'' (biotech), and ``Finance,
Insurance, Real Estate and Leasing.'' The County sits deeply in the
negative in these two areas, enough to stagnate the entire County's
GDP. Ventura County fails to achieve a mark of ``high performing'' GDP
growth in all 12 sectors. Furthermore, the County underperforms the
nation's average in 8 of the 12 sectors. However, Ventura County
outperforms the national average in the areas of natural resources,
construction and trade. Over the last decade Ventura County finds
itself in the bottom 20% of all Metropolitan Statical Areas nationally
for GDP growth. The positive take away being Ventura County shows a
solid, competitive base in trade. Federal investment in small to medium
size ports in counties similar to Ventura throughout the nation will
unquestionably foster compounded economic growth while addressing
socioeconomic justice issues in communities hit the hardest by COVID-19
and recession.
The Port of Hueneme acknowledges that the future of the logistics
and global supply chains will be dictated by the effective investment
and transition to electric technology. The Port plays an essential role
in the health and vitality of the local and regional economies and
takes very seriously our responsibility as an active community partner
and as an environmental steward. This builds community trust, buy-in
and the social license to operate. In sharing the Port's environmental
stewardship and community engagement efforts with you today, it is our
intention to build the foundation for prioritizing ports in the federal
infrastructure plan.
To bring context to where federal dollars can make a significant
difference in the environmental movement toward decarbonization of the
goods movement network, I will describe the environmental progress
taking place at the Port of Hueneme and highlight the significant
infrastructure needs requisite to a true transition to a zero emission
port and supply chain. California ports not only lead the nation, but
the world in environmental achievement. California ports are the only
ports that require refrigerated cargo ships to electrify at berth,
making them zero emission at port complexes. Collectively, California's
eleven deep water seaports realized emission reductions on the order of
80% in particulate matter, 90% in SOx and 50% in NOx. This advancement
sets the stage for all our nation's ports. California is paving the way
toward decarbonization and our initiatives are a sound model for all US
port terminals. The California and Port of Hueneme model can be scaled
up based on need, proportion and/or access to resources.
At the Port of Hueneme, we more than live up to this legacy of
environmental achievement and tradition on the global stage. In 2012,
the Port completed a comprehensive Environmental Management Framework
(EMF), that establishes both long and short-term goals and a vision of
a sustainable green future. The EMF put forth evaluation strategies to
monitor and track the Port's progress in each stated goal and creates
key performance indicators (KPIs) to quantify results openly and
transparently. The Port's environmental team implements, monitors, and
evaluates environmental projects, in partnership with Port tenants,
regulatory agencies, and the community. Specifically, the Port
developed a set of environmental management goals in air quality, water
quality, marine resources, soil and sediment, energy management and
climate change adaptation.
With the adoption of the EMF, the Port has realized significant
milestones in environmental progress. The Port is proactively
developing its Port of Hueneme Reducing Emissions Supporting Health
(PHRESH) Clean Air Plan in partnership with our local air quality
regulatory agency, the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
(VCAPCD). This comprehensive plan will include:
An assessment of the regulatory setting in which the Port
operates;
A detailed review of the Port's emissions inventory,
including an assessment of possible emissions growth scenarios;
The establishment of specific air quality goals for the
Port for both criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases;
A summary of our community involvement;
An analyses of possible emissions control strategies and
cost, and cost benefit analyses;
Estimates of funding and implementation and resources
needed; and
The establishment of a Community Coalition to provide
insights into the plan and provide an open and transparent outlet to
share data with the community.
As part of PHRESH, the Port purchased and installed the only
reference grade air quality monitors in South Oxnard at Haycox
Elementary School. We have posted initial results in a power point
presentation format delivered by our environmental manager. We are
currently translating the presentation into Spanish and Mixteco (an
indigenous language from Oaxaca, Mexico). Additionally, through this
investment students will learn firsthand about air quality monitoring
and about the importance of racial and environmental equity and access
to clean air from Port staff members who come from their own community.
We have also made significant strides in deploying zero emission
technology. In 2014 the Port installed a high-voltage, shore-side power
system which allows ships to shut down traditional diesel fueled
engines while berthed and plug in, substantially reducing ship born
emissions at berth. Since 2008 the Port achieved an 85% reduction in
diesel particulate matter emissions from our ships at berth. To feed
power to the shoreside system, the Port in partnership with Tesla,
installed five battery packs to purchase power at off-peak hours and
store it for daytime use by vessel plug-in systems. We are currently
engineering and installing new electrical infrastructure to power a new
generation of electric, zero emission cargo handling equipment,
including newly arrived hybrid electric mobile harbor cranes and zero
emission trucks. In the third quarter of this year, we will be
deploying our first zero emission yard tractors. To further our pursuit
of the goal to decarbonize cargo operations and help bring cleaner air
to our community, the Port of Hueneme's Board approved the purchase of
the first two zero emission heavy duty Port trucks in Ventura County.
These American made Kalmar battery powered trucks will help to move
containers of fresh produce around the Port while producing zero
pollution. The trucks are part of a project in conjunction with the
Port of Los Angeles funded by the California Air Resources Board, that
will also include the installation of power vaults to run the Port's
cranes on electrical power and the use of a hydrogen fuel cell big rig
truck. Furthermore, this investment will create opportunities for Port
maintenance and union machinery mechanics to learn new skillsets and
become pioneers in the transition to a zero-emission economy.
With environmental stewardship as a top priority, we have reached
many additional historic benchmarks. We installed new cutting-edge LED
lighting to significantly reduce energy use and associated emissions.
The Port has developed and is implementing a zero-waste policy to
reduce solid waste generation. The Port is dredging the harbor entrance
and the sand is being deposited to support our local beaches and fight
beach erosion. To protect the integrity of our water quality, we have a
robust stormwater management plan and installed new stormwater
filtering system. The port contracted a third-party auditor, Green
Marine, a globally renowned environmental auditor to certify the Port's
environmental agenda. Complimenting these successes, the Port is
committed to forward-looking environmental and community initiatives
including:
1. Industrial Operations Decarbonization: The Port is committed to
a trucking and cargo handling equipment transition to zero emissions on
and off Port, functioning as a regional leader in implementation of
zero emission medium and heavy-duty equipment.
2. Jobs and Social Justice: The Port is committed to bringing
economic equity to the region by providing employment opportunities for
green jobs while pushing forward an agenda of transitioning Port
equipment from diesel to less-polluting fuels of the future in
collaboration with our community partners.
3. Education Initiatives for the Local Community: The Port is
committed to providing new opportunities for the region and local
community in STEM with an eco-maker space which has more than $3
million of high-tech equipment for access by local students,
environmentalists and entrepreneurs to develop and test ideas and build
projects.
4. Clean Truck Initiatives: The Port is committed to developing a
clean trucking coalition in Oxnard and to seek funding for zero
emission trucks and infrastructure.
5. PHRESH Air Quality Community Project--The Port is committed to
launching a Clean Air Plan, Port of Hueneme Reducing Emissions
Supporting Health (PHRESH), and to providing local air quality data to
the community as a mechanism to empower local knowledge.
6. Green Jobs Training Program: The Port is committed to creating
a green jobs training program in coordination with other workforce
development groups including, LA Clean Tech Incubator, Ventura County
Workforce Development Board, local labor unions, state universities
(CSU-Channel Islands and Cal Poly San Los Obispo, UC Santa Barbara) as
a catalyst to prosper local jobs vital to the future of our region.
7. Aquaculture Partnership: The Port is committed to partnering
with entrepreneurs, scientists and other experts for the development of
an aquaculture campus on Port to develop foods and jobs of the future
for equitable, decarbonized food production.
8. Habitat Restoration: The Port is committed to partnering on the
restoration of Ormond Beach, a local habitat that has suffered from
superfund level pollution from a former smelter company, with community
and stakeholders including, the City of Oxnard, City of Port Hueneme,
Coastal Commission, Nature Conservancy to achieve habitat restoration,
safe equitable access, and recreation and education opportunities.
9. Community Outreach and Development: The Port is committed to
listening and communicating with community members about their needs
and concerns and is constantly creating opportunities to leverage its
relationships with its customers to reinvest locally with the intention
of creating social capital.
I hope my testimony is a clear statement of the commitment by the
Port of Hueneme's Board of Commissioners and staff to the continued
advancement of decarbonization and environmental stewardship. I would
now like to respectfully recommend the course of action Congress should
take to propel the future of the goods movement industry. If the nation
and you, our leaders, want a sustainable and decarbonized
transportation sector, one of our largest sources of climate and air
pollution, the stage must be set for cleaner vehicles, cleaner fuels,
and active alternative transportation options, particularly for low-
income and vulnerable communities around the nation. How do we get
there? ASSESS and INVEST:
Assess--Build the Blueprint:
Abraham Lincoln once said, ``Give me six hours to chop down a tree
and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe.'' There needs to be
a true understanding of all the complexities of a paradigm shift to
decarbonization. This requires the development of a blueprint to
effectively transition to a new fuel economy which includes a
nationwide feasibility and cost analysis. For example, the capacity of
our nation's utility networks, infrastructure availability and upgrade
costs need to fully be evaluated and understood. At the Port of
Hueneme, the forecasted cost for electric infrastructure is $28.5
million. This cost does not include the utility company's own
infrastructure improvements that will be required, an upgrade from a
16.9 to a 66 kilo-volt power distribution system. This utility company
infrastructure upgrade is necessary in order to provide enough power to
the Port of Hueneme for its electrification projects and could run as
high as $50+ million. The utility company has indicated that they are
nearing maximum capacity and may not be able to support future high
electrical capacity needs from the Port of Hueneme. Furthermore, the
feasibility and costs of retrofitting vessels and other private sector
assets needs to be factored into the plan. The Port of Hueneme is one
of example of millions across the country where these dynamics need to
be flushed out and the road map defined, so the investments made by the
federal government are well informed by true costs, science and
technological viability.
Invest--Build the New Alternative Fuel Economy:
The goods movement industry turns to its leaders in Congress to
appropriate the funds requisite to incentivizing a transition to a
carbon free future. For the decade spanning 2018-2028, AAPA identified
$20 billion in multimodal and rail access needs at ports. For
California ports alone, the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association
estimates costs to replace current equipment with zero emission or
near-zero emission equipment to exceed $23 billion and $35 billion to
replace current equipment with electrified high-density equipment and
supporting infrastructure, all prior to utility upgrades. As
populations shift, as cargo volumes grow, and as we continue to embrace
e-commerce and direct to consumer shopping, federal investments at
these magnitudes will be critical to ensuring the United States has a
21st century multimodal freight network that competes globally,
delivers locally and runs on clean energy. INVEST:
INVEST in a multimodal freight network program as
contained in H.R. 511, the National Multimodal Freight Network
Improvement Act
INVEST in a Zero Emission Future: There are massive costs
to the replacement and repowering every piece of equipment. Significant
dollars are needed to provide funds for equipment replacement and
infrastructure and to ensure the energy capacity exists to meet the
full demands of the supply chain.
INVEST in a New Alternative Fuel Economy: New alternative
fuel infrastructure triggers vast costs and utilities complications;
Federal funding for planning, engineering, permitting and construction
are key to the transition.
INVEST in Resilient Infrastructure: Congress needs to
drive investment in our critical (e.g., grid) and natural (e.g.,
forests, soil) infrastructure to create a more resilient, inclusive,
and sustainable economy.
INVEST in a Just Transition--Invest in training and
educational programs that create high quality job opportunities for our
nation's emerging decarbonized economy, with a focus on renewable
energy, circular economy, and water and energy efficiency, thereby
seeding the pipeline for a green workforce and social equity.
To further expand on this last point, I would like to use the Port
of Hueneme as example to demonstrate how investment in clean technology
at ports results in a paradigm shift in the workforce for underserved
communities. The cities of Oxnard and Port Hueneme are two communities
adjacent to the Port of Hueneme. In Oxnard, 23.8% of the population
lives in poverty and only 64.7% of residents have completed a high
school education. Both the cities qualify as economically distressed
areas under the Recovery Act based on their unemployment rates and per
capita income being substantially less than the national average. Why
is this so? Ventura County has traditionally been an agricultural hub
for the harvesting of strawberries, lemons, celery, beets, and other
crops. Given the nature of this history, most employment opportunities
for minorities have come in the form of packing house labor or direct
picking in the fields. Most of these jobs have been designated as
unskilled labor and reserved for low-income Spanish speaking
communities which are mostly categorized for immigrants of Mexican
descent. Additionally, a recent influx of 20,000 Mixtec, indigenous
immigrants from the Oaxaca region in Mexico, have brought the inclusion
of a third language (Mixteco) which further adds to the language
barriers and racial divide. In South Oxnard, which neighbors the Port
of Hueneme, the neighborhood of Southwinds is home to upwards of 80% of
the Mixteco indigenous groups which live in overcrowded conditions
directly under the poverty rate.
Utilizing the Port and its longstanding job creating contributions
to the region, it is therefore imperative that these barriers be
addressed through intentional interventions that can help create access
and mobility within the local job markets. Eliminating barriers to
participation in the green technology and renewable energy economy of
the future should be a key ingredient to the federal approach to
infrastructure investment and expanding job opportunities for
disadvantaged communities. The Port of Hueneme is actively working to
link those in need of economic opportunities with the educational and
employment resources which the Port engages with in its day-to-day
cargo work. Connecting those in need with education to those with jobs
will help alleviate the barriers which have historically kept the poor
in a vicious cycle of less equal access to jobs, housing, and
educational opportunities in ``sacrifice zones.'' Federal investment in
infrastructure and zero emission cargo handling equipment will bolster
this job creation pipeline for the underserved.
In closing, California Ports such as the Port of Hueneme have been
early adopters of green technology solutions. California Ports are the
pioneers of testing, innovating and taking on the risk of implementing
new technologies that lower emissions. As early adopters California
ports have expertise on best practices and what works. The Port of
Hueneme and our customers have spent over $50 million in the last 10
years on port related electric infrastructure improvements. We have a
strong track record. Today the Port of Hueneme is excited to partner
with you and to continue to serve as a role model for other U.S. Ports
who are ultimately all going to be a part of the carbon free maritime
industry. We stand ready to help prosper federal action to assess and
invest in our future.
I thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to the
Committee about the Port of Hueneme's role in the national and southern
California regional economies and importance of continuing
environmental improvements in maritime goods movement and strengthening
of the national economy.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Ms. Decas. You were well ahead of
your time, so thank you.
Next we will proceed to Mr. Morgan Fanberg.
Mr. Fanberg. Thank you, Chairman Carbajal, Ranking Member
Gibbs, and subcommittee members, for the opportunity to speak
with you today.
As a U.S.-based naval architecture firm, Glosten has been
working to decarbonize the marine industry for more than a
decade. Creating a carbon-free maritime industry is an
unprecedented challenge that creates a unique opportunity for
U.S. technology developers. However, foreign competition is
better funded, and is currently leading the decarbonization
technology race.
So how can the U.S. lead, when we have less than 3 percent
of the world's oceangoing fleet? Well, we can make the greatest
impact by focusing our decarbonization efforts on the U.S.
domestic fleet, which is one of the world's largest, consisting
of ferries, tugs, dredges, coastal tankers, and other vessels.
We need a national strategic initiative plan with a focused
vision and an urgent timeline. MARAD and the Department of
Energy are the agencies to lead these efforts. This plan should
include the following three actions to accelerate U.S.
progress.
First, DOE should increase port and terminal infrastructure
funding for electric vessel charging and alternative fuel
bunkering. Electrifying ships already comes at a premium.
Therefore, adding cost for shoreside infrastructure will be
quite difficult for private operators to fully bear without
Government assistance. The benefits of electric harbor vessels
cannot be realized without this infrastructure, much like the
electric car industry cannot thrive without roadside charging
stations. Likewise, bunkering alternative fuels can require
specialized fueling infrastructure that will be difficult to
scale without Government support.
Second, MARAD has the experience to bring together
academia, Government, technology providers, and vessel
operators. By funding consortiums such as Washington State's
Maritime Blue, we can pilot, demonstrate, and commercialize
carbon-neutral and carbon-zero technologies for our domestic
fleet.
In the U.S. we have the needed resources from these
following groups: universities and national labs for
fundamental research into alternative fuels--hydrogen, ammonia,
methanol, nuclear, green diesel, or other renewable fuels;
industry partners, such as vessel operators, equipment
suppliers, and naval architects to convert research into
practical technologies that are ready for demonstration and
commercialization; and maritime academies, where we can use the
new fleet of training vessels now under construction as
platforms for testing and proving emerging technologies, while
also preparing cadets and midshipmen for the future.
The third and final step in this plan is development of a
streamlined regulatory process that encourages new
technologies, provides certainty from design through
construction, and prevents project time delays. This process is
critical to the success of any U.S.-led effort.
We at Glosten are involved in several collaboration
projects. Two that represent partnerships are, first, the
Glosten and Bieker foil ferry. This is a modern composite
hydrofoil, all-electric passenger ferry. It requires less than
half of the installed power of a typical high-speed passenger
catamaran. This project is a great example of the partnership
that MARAD can foster. In our case, Washington State's Maritime
Blue has brought our technology team together with local
operators, ports, builders, and the classification agency, DNV.
Our cluster was recently awarded a $400,000 FTA grant to
further the design, which is fantastic. However, by comparison,
a U.K.-based developer of a competing design was awarded a $45
million Government grant to not only design, but also build and
demonstrate their concept.
Second, as part of a MARAD-funded project, Glosten, Sandia
National Laboratories, and Scripps Institution of Oceanography
worked together to design a hydrogen-fueled coastal research
vessel. The design proved the feasibility to build and operate
a coastal research vessel powered solely by hydrogen fuel
cells. This is a shovel-ready project requiring Federal funding
for construction, so we can demonstrate the effectiveness of
alternative fuel technology, not only for research vessels, but
for other longer range coastal ships.
By comparison, the EU's Horizon 2020 program funded,
through a $25 million grant, the construction of a Norwegian
hydrogen-powered cargo vessel. It will be launched in 2024.
So in summary, the global maritime industry has not faced a
more daunting challenge since vessels moved from sail power to
steam. Action must be taken now to tackle the amount of
scientific and engineering work required to move the industry
to carbon-free in the next 25 to 30 years.
We have the key resources ready to meet this challenge. But
if we delay, we will watch as foreign countries develop future
technologies and equipment, fuels, and infrastructure. We have
a great opportunity to showcase American leadership and
ingenuity. But similar to so many of our Nation's historic
challenges, no single entity can get us to our goals.
We need Government to partner with academia and private
industry to develop, deploy, and demonstrate decarbonization
technologies to achieve emission targets and position the
United States as the global maritime leader.
Thank you.
[Mr. Fanberg's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Morgan M. Fanberg, P.E., President, Glosten, Inc.
Introduction
Thank you, Chairman Carbajal, Ranking Member Gibbs, and
subcommittee members for the opportunity to speak to you today. It is
my honor to share my perspective on how our nation can be a leader in
the challenge to decarbonize marine transportation.
Creating a carbon-free maritime industry is an unprecedented
challenge that creates a unique opportunity for U.S. technology
developers. If this is our goal, time is of the essence. We will soon
lose to foreign competition that is better funded and better prepared
to lead the maritime industry toward decarbonization.
As a U.S.-based naval architecture firm, Glosten has been working
to decarbonize the marine industry because we believe this is one of
the most important and impactful marine industry transformations of our
time.
The U.S. domestic fleet as one of the world's largest, which in
2020 was comprised of 3,652 \1\ self-propelled vessels of more than 100
gross tons. This is a highly varied fleet that includes passenger
ferries operating in population centers such as New York City and San
Francisco Bay, offshore supply vessels in the U.S. Gulf, tug and barge
operations plying our inland waterway system, near-coastal tankers,
containerships, and dredges keeping our shipping channels open.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data search on UNCTAD STAT (12 April 2021) (https://
unctadstat.unctad.org). Exported into a U.S. report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. is a major maritime trading center with an opportunity to
define and supply the necessary infrastructure to support a
decarbonized fleet.
We believe the U.S. has the necessary academic, industrial,
engineering, and marine operator resources necessary to meet the
challenge facing our domestic fleet. We are at a point where we can
either be late and adopt foreign technologies, or we can move quickly
and lead the world.
Meeting the global maritime carbon reduction goals requires an
aggressive shift from burning fossil fuels to low or zero-carbon fuels
and the electrification of certain short-run vessels. Today, these non-
fossil fuels do not exist at commercial scale, port infrastructure
cannot handle future demands, and regulations applying to these future
technologies do not exist.
Steps Toward Decarbonization
To reduce total greenhouse gas emissions from shipping by 50% by
the year 2050, we will need to employ public-private partnerships. The
immediate step is to develop a national strategic initiative with a
clear vision, timeline, achievable metrics, and proper accountability.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) and the Department of Energy
(DOE) are the government agencies ready to lead these efforts by
developing this strategic initiative plan and executing projects aimed
at reaching our goals of decarbonization. These agencies need to lead
this initiative by increasing targeted funding for research and
development, infrastructure improvements, and design and demonstration
projects.
The strategic initiative plan should include the following three
actions to accelerate U.S. progress toward decarbonization:
1. The DOE should increase funding for port and terminal
infrastructure projects targeting electric vessel charging and
bunkering of zero carbon alternative fuel sources. Vessel
electrification already comes at a premium; therefore, adding costs for
shoreside infrastructure will be very difficult for private operators
to fully bear without government assistance. The benefits of electric
harbor vessels cannot be realized without this infrastructure, much
like the electric car industry cannot thrive without roadside charging
stations. Likewise, bunkering alternative fuels can require specialized
fueling infrastructure that will be difficult to scale without
government support.
2. MARAD should accelerate the path to commercialization for
marine vessel decarbonization. Academia, government, and commercial
entities must work together in close coordination to achieve successful
pilot projects. Not only will this approach demonstrate the
effectiveness of new innovations, but it will showcase the United
States as a global leader in decarbonization and support the export,
rather than import, of future maritime technology. These groups
include:
a. Universities and National Labs for fundamental research into
alternative fuels. Advanced battery technology is already available for
all-electric propulsion on coastal vessels, but this technology is
restricted to vessels operating on short routes or in other coastal
water operations. To decarbonize vessels on longer duration routes,
power systems will need to be fueled by hydrogen, ammonia, or other
zero carbon and renewable fuels.
b. Industry partners that can convert research into practical
technologies that are ready for demonstration and commercialization.
This conversion will require marine equipment suppliers, naval
architects, and marine vessel operators.
c. Maritime academies to leverage the new fleet of training
vessels now under construction as platforms for testing and proving
emerging technologies, such as hybrid and zero carbon fuel propulsion,
and solar and wind capture, while also preparing cadets for the future.
3. Support and encourage the streamlining of the regulatory review
and approval process for maritime decarbonization projects from design
through construction. A streamlined regulatory process will help reduce
costs to government and industry funded innovation projects without
compromising safety or the environment.
What Glosten Is Doing
The following project examples require support to advance U.S.
competitiveness in marine vessel decarbonization:
Foil Ferry
Glosten has partnered with Bieker Boats to form Foil Ferry, LLC.
This new company's vision is to design and bring to market a modern,
composite hydrofoil passenger ferry. This ferry requires less than half
of the installed power of a typical, high-speed passenger catamaran and
could utilize all-electric propulsion on applicable routes.
Figure 1_Foil Ferry Rendering
As part of the public-private Washington Maritime Blue Partnership,
we were recently awarded a $372,910 USD Federal Transportation
Administration grant to further this design. Once the design is
complete, we will look for future grant funding to build a prototype
vessel to showcase the technology with the aim of building vessels for
future ferry system routes.
By comparison, a UK-based developer of a competing design was
awarded a $45M USD government grant to complete and build their design
\2\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.artemistechnologies.co.uk/en/technologies/news/
23_Artemis-Technologies-to-build-zero-emissions-ferries-following-60M-
funding
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero-V
As part of a MARAD funded project, Glosten worked with partners
Sandia National Laboratories and Scripps Institution of Oceanography to
design a hydrogen fueled coastal research vessel that addressed the
technical, regulatory, and economic feasibility challenges. This
project assessed the benefits and determined the prospects for
refueling such a vessel at expected points of call. The team determined
it was feasible to design, build and operate a coastal research vessel
powered solely by hydrogen fuel cells \3\ \4\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://energy.sandia.gov/wp-content/uploads/SAND2018-
4664_Zero-V_Feasibility_
Report_8.5x11_Spreads_FINALDRAFT_compress.pdf
\4\ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/
S036031992032156X
Figure 2--Zero-V Research Vessel
This is an example of a shovel-ready project requiring federal
funding to help demonstrate the effectiveness of alternative fuel
technology, not only for research vessels, but other longer-range
coastal vessels.
As one of several comparison examples, the European Union's Horizon
2020 program granted the Norwegian hydrogen cargo vessel Topeka $25M
USD with an expected launch in 2024 \5\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/12/20201219-topeka.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skagit County's Guemes Island Replacement Ferry
Washington State's Skagit County Public Works hired Glosten to
develop a ferry design to replace their current 41-year-old diesel-
powered vessel. An initial propulsion system selection showed favorable
operational costs savings and a reduced life cycle cost with a battery
electric propulsion system. With the Commissioners' decision to proceed
with an electric ferry, Glosten developed the vessel design.
Figure 3_Skagit County All-Electric Ferry
The County Road Administration Board awarded Skagit County $7.5
million for the electric ferry project. An additional $1.5 million from
Washington State Capital Fund has been awarded for shore charging
infrastructure. The entire project is estimated to cost approximately
$19.5 million. The County continues to seek funding through state and
federal avenues to close the financial gap. Successful completion of
this project with construction of this ferry will demonstrate the
advances in technology for other ferry systems where routes could be
served by battery-powered vessels.
Conclusion
In summary, the global maritime industry has not faced a more
daunting challenge since vessels moved from sail power to steam. Action
must be taken now to tackle the amount of scientific and engineering
work required to move the industry to carbon-free in the next 25-30
years. We have the key resources ready to meet this challenge, but if
we delay, we will watch as foreign countries develop future
technologies in equipment, fuels, and infrastructure.
We have a great opportunity to showcase American leadership and
ingenuity, but similar to so many of our nation's historic challenges,
no single entity can get us to our goals. We need government to partner
with academia and private industry to develop, deploy, and demonstrate
decarbonization technologies to achieve emission targets and position
the United States as the global maritime leader.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Fanberg. Next we will go to
Dr. Lee Kindberg.
Ms. Kindberg. Thank you, Chairman Carbajal. And may I get a
sound check?
Mr. Carbajal. We can hear you.
Ms. Kindberg. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Carbajal,
Ranking Member Gibbs, Chairman DeFazio, and members of the
committee. Thank you for the invitation to speak today. I am
Lee Kindberg, and I am head of environment and sustainability
for North America, for Maersk, a global logistics and container
shipping company.
This is a really exciting time to be in shipping, as you
have heard, a time of change that will transform the industry
as much as containerization did in the 20th century. And ocean
shipping is already the most energy-efficient way to move cargo
long distances and has the lowest carbon footprint of any mode
of transportation. Those ships use very large diesel engines to
move these mountains of cargo, and that generates greenhouse
gases, primarily carbon dioxide, or carbon, and other
pollutants.
Now, reducing those emissions requires both improving
energy efficiency and new, carbon-neutral fuels and
technologies. There are likely to be several winners, since
there are several types of shipping. Our customers and other
stakeholders need us to provide carbon-neutral shipping to
enable them to meet their zero-carbon goals.
In December 2018, we made a commitment to do just that, to
achieve carbon-neutral shipping by 2050 for our entire fleet.
We also set 2030 goals for energy efficiency, and a goal of
launching our first carbon-neutral vessel by 2030. At the time
that really seemed like a moonshot goal. Today we see it as
still a very challenging target, but clearly possible to reach.
And I would like to report today on progress we are making on
that. Since 2008 we have reduced our emissions by 47 percent
per container moved. So this is an energy efficiency effort.
Today's customers are actually paying a premium for our
carbon-neutral eco-delivery shipping service that is new just
in the last year. It is small, but it is growing.
We are also already testing bio-based fuels, batteries, and
other technologies on commercial vessels, and we are evaluating
other fuels. And there is a table in the written statement that
goes into details of some of those other fuels.
We are developing a new renewable fuel using ethanol and
lignin from agricultural and forest wood wastes. This work is
supported in part by several of our major customers. So, again,
the support from our customers is critical.
In March of this year we announced that our first carbon-
neutral container vessel would be operational by 2023, 7 years
earlier than our 2030 commitment. This will be the world's
first carbon-neutral liner vessel. This, and all of our new
vessels, have been committed to be capable of using those new,
carbon-neutral fuels. This particular vessel will be powered by
green methanol, a fuel which is not available on this scale
today.
The limited supply of fuels like green methanol is a
bottleneck for decarbonizing the industry. We believe this
commitment is the best way to kickstart the rapid scaling of
carbon-neutral fuels, and also give us operational experience
and provide a carbon-neutral product for our customers.
Now, the biggest challenges ahead are not just on the
ships. The land-based industries and infrastructure must be
there to supply those fuels and technologies at scale, and we
have to do it sustainably, without jeopardizing food
production, or forests.
Economic and policy systems must also adapt to support this
transformation, and there will probably be more than one winner
in the work to develop new fuels and energy sources, and likely
competition between shipping and other industries to develop
and purchase those fuels.
So what will it take to make this happen? Well-focused R&D,
with collaboration across the industry, and with other related
industries; alignment between national and international goals
and metrics. The International Maritime Organization, the IMO,
sets the rules for international shipping, and is tightening
the metrics and goals for vessel emissions, even as we speak.
And then measure what matters. For good decisionmaking and
to avoid stranded assets, include the full set of greenhouse
gases, both upstream and downstream impacts. And by that I mean
the impact of fuel production, distribution, and use all count.
You have to look at it from well to wake, and not just look at
the stat gas emissions.
Requirements need to be clear, performance-based, enforced,
and encourage early action, not penalize it. And both
incentives and enforcement should be part of the future climate
programs.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is an energy transformation. It
is not a new fuel or a vessel modification. Huge changes to
both vessel design and land-based infrastructures must happen
to produce and distribute those new energy sources. And
policies, metrics, and laws must adapt to enable that change.
So thank you for this opportunity to provide this progress
report, and I will be happy to take any questions.
[Ms. Kindberg's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of B. Lee Kindberg, Ph.D., GCB.D, Head of
Environment and Sustainability-North America, Maersk
Chairman Carbajal, Ranking Member Gibbs, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify today.
Maersk is a world leader in logistics and has long been committed
to environmental leadership. We are headquartered in Copenhagen Denmark
and our North American Headquarters is in Florham Park, New Jersey. We
operate over 700 container vessels globally under brands including
Maersk, SeaLand, Hamburg Sud, and Svitzer ocean-going tugs. Here in the
U.S., Maersk Line, Limited is the owner and operator of our U.S. Flag
vessels and the largest participant in the U.S. Maritime Security
Program. On the land side we have APM Terminals (our marine terminal
operating arm), and other supply chain logistics facilities in the
United States and globally.
We are committed to ensuring that our business practices are safe,
responsible and transparent. This year the urgent priorities of the
pandemic have kept us busy, however sustainability remains at the top
of our agenda. We see increasing expectations from all stakeholders,
and especially our customers, investors, governments and employees--
expectations that we and our industry deliver more solutions, more
visibility and more help in decarbonising supply chains. Our goals,
strategies and progress are discussed in our annual Sustainability
Reports, available on our website \1\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maersk's annual Sustainability Reports are available on our
website at https://www.Maersk.com/en/business/sustainability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The shipping industry emits 2-3% of the world's anthropogenic CO2
and shipping is the only industry to have set global metrics and goals
on energy efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants
such as sulfur. These air emissions are produced by fuel consumption in
our ships' very large diesel engines, and include both Greenhouse gases
(GHG, primarily CO2, which is sometimes referred to as ``carbon'' or
``carbon footprint'') and criteria air pollutants (SOx, NOx, fine
particles).
Maersk alone emits approx. 0.1% of global anthropogenic CO2, so
decarbonization is a cornerstone in our sustainability strategy. Our
first focus is on ocean transport, which is the source of 98% of our
``Scope 1 emissions.'' Decarbonization goals will be extended to our
marine terminals and other logistics services and transport modes over
the coming years.
Reducing fuel consumption does reduce operating costs and also
reduces emissions of both greenhouse gases and other pollutants. In the
last twelve years Maersk has reduced our fuel consumed and related
emissions by 47% per container moved. This energy efficiency
improvement was achieved in three primary ways: new larger vessels,
retrofits of our existing vessels, and improved operational and vessel
management practices. Our Radical Retrofit program involved investing
$1Billion over 5 years starting in 2015. We continue to mature, harden
and implement the ``Connected Vessel'' digitalization project to
connect our fleet digitally with our global operations coordination
centers and enable real-time optimization to reduce fuel consumption
and related emissions.
In December 2018 Maersk announced a goal of Net Zero Carbon
Shipping by 2050. That commitment included launching our first zero
carbon vessel by 2030 and continuing our energy efficiency work with a
2030 goal of a 60% reduction in emissions vs. 2008.
Just two years after setting that net zero ambition in December
2018, we find we have come further than we imagined possible at that
time. In 2018, a 2050 net zero ambition for shipping was a moonshot
goal. Today, we see it as a challenging target, but clearly possible to
reach.
A prerequisite for Maersk to meet the Net Zero 2050 target is
radical innovation in technologies and fuels. We have openly recognized
the need for close collaboration with external stakeholders such as
technology and fuel providers, researchers, investors, governmental
officials and staffs, and especially our customers to meet the target.
We plan significant future investments, including further energy
efficiency work, alternative fuel development, and the technologies
needed to build zero carbon vessels.
A First Carbon Neutral Vessel
In March of this year we announced that our first carbon neutral
container vessel will be operational by 2023. This has been made
possible by the advances in technology, our strategic commitment to
sustainable practices and the active support of our partners and
stakeholders. Powered by biomethanol or e-methanol, this feeder vessel
will pilot an industry-first, scalable carbon neutral product. This is
encouraged by the strong support and commitment by our customers to
keep accelerating the full transition to decarbonisation.
This first vessel will give valuable operational experience, help
accelerate our journey, demonstrate real demand to fuel suppliers, and
provide a scalable, carbon neutral option for customers. We believe our
commitment to put the world's first carbon neutral liner vessel in
operation by 2023 is the best way to kick start the rapid scaling of
the carbon neutral fuels needed, since the limited supply of green
methanol is a bottleneck for decarbonising the industry.
Action on Zero emissions shipping
Maersk is already engaged in several innovation projects and is
significantly scaling up our innovation efforts. Currently we have more
than 50 engineers in our technical innovation departments who focus
primarily on reducing fuel consumption, and we are hiring more as we
speak to broaden our efforts. At this point we are not ruling out any
technological options and the innovation work covers many areas
including the following:
1. Continue our cutting-edge fuel efficiency efforts such as
retrofitting existing vessels with new technologies and setting new
standards on fuel efficiency when we order new vessels. Maersk does not
purchase standard vessels; we always optimize designs, with close
collaboration between our technical experts and the shipyards.
2. Electrification. We installed a major marine battery on a
vessel in 2020 to learn how this technology might be useful on a vessel
and to drive further development on the technology. We also now connect
vessels to shore power in California and China, allowing us to operate
in port without emissions.
3. Research in new alternative fuels. We have a range of programs
exploring new marine fuels, including several programs related to
biofuels. Examples include:
Biofuel-based ECO-Delivery: A pilot voyage with 4 major
customers in April-May 2019 used renewable biofuel blends made from
used cooking oils on an Asia-Europe roundtrip to prove applicability
and test commercial opportunities. This successful trial led to a new
carbon neutral shipping service called ``ECO-Delivery,'' which has
grown even more quickly than we had hoped and continues to attract new
major shipping customers.
Lignin Ethanol Oil (``LEO'') biofuel: Maersk, together
with a coalition of U.S.-based and international customers and in
collaboration with the University of Copenhagen, has establishing a new
sustainability innovation project to develop a biofuel tailor-made for
shipping (LEO). This biofuel does not exist today but has the potential
to have significant positive impact on CO2 emissions as well as other
air emissions from shipping.
The concept is to blend bio-based ethanol with the biopolymer
lignin (a by-product of agriculture, paper making and wood-products
production) to form a new relatively inexpensive biofuel with high
energy content. The LEO biofuel should be a sustainable fuel meaning
that it is: 1) Made from waste/by-products not competing with food
uses--a 2nd generation biofuel, 2) Should be CO2 neutral, and 3) is
economically feasible and price competitive with conventional fuels (or
only small price premium). The current objectives of the LEO project
are to confirm the feasibility of the fuel, test it on a vessel, and
make it commercially feasible for uptake in the shipping industry.
In the fall of 2020, the Maersk Mc-Kinney Moller Center
for Zero Carbon Shipping was established by seven companies including
Maersk, with the intent of accelerating development of the technologies
and fuels needed to for carbon neutral shipping in the time frame
needed.
The Need for Strong Regulations, Global Standards and Enforcement
Wise fuel choices depend on having global metrics and goals, and
clear standards for how to measure, report and verify the full impact
of fuels and operations. These metrics need to include the full suite
of GHG--CO2, methane and nitrogen oxides--as well as the upstream and
downstream impacts of fuel extraction, production, delivery and use.
Global standards are strongly needed in this area to enable clear
comparisons and impact assessments. And in this rapidly changing field,
performance-based standards are needed rather than attempting to choose
winners among the new fuels and technologies.
The importance of enforcement is illustrated by the recent
implementation of IMO's 2020 fuel rule. As of January 2020, all ships
were required to reduce their sulfur oxide emissions by over 80%. This
was a major transition and the vast majority of the global fleet
(including Maersk vessels) has complied by switching to more expensive
low sulfur fuel. This comes at a very steep price; for Maersk alone,
the additional bill was estimated to be around $2 billion per year. The
very large potential savings by non-compliance show the importance of
strong enforcement. For example, a vessel trading from Asia to Europe
could ``save'' close to $750,000 USD per ship per voyage by ignoring
the IMO2020 rules. Companies rely on good enforcement to provide the
``level playing field'' necessary for competitiveness and environmental
progress.
The same strong enforcement concepts will need to be fundamental
components of any climate-related programs. When developing climate
programs at the national and international level it is of utmost
importance that mechanisms are in place to ensure that international
competition is not disrupted and that first movers are rewarded for
early investments into emissions reducing technology.
In closing let me reiterate that the changes required to achieve
carbon neutral shipping will not be easy or inexpensive, either on the
vessel side or the land-based fuels infrastructures. However, we
believe it can and must be done. Massive innovative solutions and fuel
transformation will be required to produce and distribute entirely new
energy sources. Regulatory changes and standards development are also
needed on a global scale to enable this transformation.
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you again for the opportunity to
discuss this important topic with you today. I will be happy to answer
any questions.
Potential Carbon-Neutral Fuels
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Dr. Kindberg.
Now we will go to Dr. Dan Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Good morning, Chairman Carbajal, Ranking
Member Gibbs, Chairman DeFazio, Congresswoman Brownley, and
other subcommittee members. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify today on behalf of the International Council on Clean
Transportation.
The ICCT is an independent, nonprofit research organization
headquartered in Washington, DC, with offices in San Francisco,
Berlin, Beijing, and Sao Paulo. ICCT employs a team of over 100
transportation experts that advise policymakers on how to
improve the environmental performance of the transport sector.
Maritime shipping is a cornerstone of our modern economy,
but it comes with impacts. Air pollution from shipping is
linked to at least 64,000 premature deaths per year, globally,
with the underprivileged and minority communities living near
ports feeling the brunt of the impact. In 2018 global shipping
emitted about 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide, or more than
the German and Dutch economies combined.
Much work lies ahead if the sector is to meet the U.N. goal
of cutting greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping
by at least 50 percent from 2008 levels by 2050. To meet this
goal, we will need zero-emission, deep-sea ships on the water
by no later than 2030. Key technologies include battery-
electric ships for near-port operations and short-sea shipping;
hydrogen, which, in pressurized or cryogenic form can power
fuel cells that are already available and scalable; and
ammonia, which is gaining attention as an easy-to-store
hydrogen carrier. These fuels can be generated from abundant
renewable electricity with a negligible climate footprint.
Today we are already seeing fully battery-electric and
fuel-cell zero-emission vessels, especially ferries and barges
on short, dedicated routes. Infrastructure investments for fast
charging for battery-electric ships can also support shore
power to reduce at-port air pollution. We expect full-sized,
deep-sea, zero-emission vessels running on hydrogen fuel cells
or burning renewable ammonia to be possible as soon as 2030.
Hybrid or fully zero-emission regional cargo ships will be
available even sooner. Technologies like wind-assisted
propulsion and hull air lubrication will help reduce energy use
and make zero-carbon fuels more competitive.
A word of caution: biofuels and liquefied natural gas are
being used now, but neither is a reliable bridge to zero-
emission vessels. Sustainable biofuel supply is limited, in
demand by a variety of sectors, and must be generated from
waste, and also not result in deforestation in order to be
sustainable. LNG produces about 25 percent less CO2 when
combusted. But due to methane leaks upstream during the
production of LNG, and also downstream from the engine itself,
LNG is often worse for the climate than conventional fuels
after accounting for its full life-cycle emissions.
The coming transition to zero-emission shipping can be a
win for the U.S. economy, the environment, and human health.
Zero-emission vessels eliminate air pollution from the ships
themselves, easing the health burdens of coastal and near-port
communities. ZEVs avoid the water pollution generated by ships
that use sulfur scrubbers. There are also quieter, and ZEVs
will unlock new careers to develop advanced engines, fuel
cells, batteries, and fuels.
The production and sale of zero-emission marine fuels in
particular is a major opportunity for U.S. businesses. Today,
the largest vessels visiting U.S. ports are often fueled
abroad, not here at home. Producing zero-emission marine fuels
like electricity, hydrogen, and ammonia domestically will
provide new economic opportunities for Americans, while
protecting vulnerable near-port communities.
So what actions can the U.S. Government take to support the
ZEV transition? First, we need substantial investments to
develop and deploy zero-emission vessels and fuels, along with
supporting port electrification and infrastructure. U.S.-
flagged Jones Act vessels, which operate shorter routes between
regular ports, can be used to demonstrate and mature the
technologies we will need for deep-sea ZEVs.
Second, the U.S. should work with key trading partners,
including Canada, Mexico, the EU, and China, to establish zero-
emission vessel corridors and associated infrastructure.
Finally, the U.S. should lead in negotiating ambitious
international standards for larger ships at the International
Maritime Organization. These actions can reduce climate and air
pollution from shipping, improve the health and well-being of
port communities, and help unlock new markets for zero-emission
vessels and fuels.
Thank you for the opportunity to present today.
[Mr. Rutherford's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dan Rutherford, Ph.D., Marine and Aviation
Program Director, International Council on Clean Transportation
My name is Dan Rutherford. I'm the program director for shipping
and aviation at the International Council on Clean Transportation. The
ICCT is an independent, non-profit research organization headquartered
in Washington DC, with offices in San Francisco, Berlin, Beijing, and
Sao Paulo. ICCT employs a team of over one hundred transportation
experts that advise policymakers on how to improve the environmental
performance of the transport sector.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the
ICCT. Maritime shipping is a cornerstone of our modern economy, but it
comes with impacts. Air pollution from shipping is linked to at least
64,000 premature deaths per year globally \1\, with underprivileged and
minority communities living near ports feeling the brunt of that
impact. In 2018, global shipping emitting about a gigatonne of carbon
dioxide (CO2), or more than the German and Dutch economies combined.\2\
Much work lies ahead if the sector is to meet the United Nations' goal
of cutting GHG emissions from international shipping by at least 50%
from 2008 levels by 2050.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sofiev et al., 2018.
\2\ Faber et al., 2020; Crippa et al., 2019.
\3\ Rutherford & Comer, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To meet this goal, we'll need zero emission deep sea ships on the
water by no later than 2030. Key technologies include battery electric
ships for near-port operations and short sea shipping; hydrogen, which
in pressured or cryogenic form can power fuel cells that are already
available and scalable; and ammonia, which is gaining attention as an
easy-to-store hydrogen carrier. These fuels can be generated from
abundant renewable electricity with a negligible climate footprint.
Today, we're already seeing fully battery electric and fuel cell
zero-emission vessels, especially ferries and barges on short,
dedicated routes (Figure 1). Infrastructure investments for fast
charging for battery electric ships can also support shore power to
reduce at-port air pollution. We expect full-sized, deep-sea zero-
emission vessels running on hydrogen fuel cells or burning renewable
ammonia to be possible as soon as 2030. Hybrid or fully zero-emission
regional cargo ships will be available even sooner. Technologies like
wind-assisted propulsion and hull air lubrication will help reduce
energy use and make zero carbon fuels more competitive.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Comer et al., 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A word of caution: biofuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG) are
being used now, but neither is a reliable bridge to zero-emission
vessels. Sustainable biofuel supply is limited, in demand by a variety
of sectors, must be generated from waste, and not result in
deforestation in order to be sustainable.\5\ LNG produces about 25%
less CO2 when combusted but, due to methane leaks upstream during the
production of LNG and downstream from the engine itself, LNG is often
worse for the climate than conventional fuels after accounting for its
full life-cycle emissions (Figure 2).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Zhou et al., 2020.
\6\ Pavlenko et al., 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The coming transition to zero emission shipping can be a win for
the U.S. economy, the environment, and human health. Zero-emission
vessels (ZEVs) eliminate air pollution from the ships themselves,
easing the health burdens of coastal and near-port communities. ZEVs
avoid the water pollution generated by ships that use sulfur scrubbers.
They're also quieter. And zero-emission vessels will unlock new careers
to develop advanced engines, fuel cells, batteries, and fuels.
The production and sale of zero emission marine fuels in particular
is a major opportunity for U.S. businesses. Today, the largest vessels
visiting U.S. ports are often fuelled abroad, not here at home (Figure
3). Producing zero emission marine fuels like electricity, hydrogen,
and ammonia domestically will provide new economic opportunities for
Americans (Figure 4) while protecting vulnerable near-port communities.
So, what actions can the U.S. government take to support the ZEV
transition? First, we need substantial investments to develop and
deploy zero-emission vessels and fuels, along with supporting port
electrification and infrastructure. U.S. flagged ``Jones Act'' vessels,
which operate shorter routes between regular ports, can be used to
demonstrate and mature the technologies we'll need for deep sea ZEVs.
Second, the U.S. should work with key trading partners, including
Canada, Mexico, the EU, and China, to establish zero-emission vessel
corridors and the associated infrastructure. Finally, the U.S. should
lead in negotiating ambitious international standards for larger ships
at the International Maritime Organization. These actions can reduce
climate and air pollution from shipping, improve the health and well-
being of port communities, and help unlock new markets for zero-
emission vessels and fuels.
Thank you for the opportunity to present today. I look forward to
answering any questions the honorable members have for me.
Supplemental information
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 1: Technologies for zero emission shipping through 2050.
principles for assessing alternative marine fuels
Flexible, technology-neutral standards set a level playing field
for innovation and enable industry to find least-cost ways to reduce
emissions. ICCT research has identified three key principles when
evaluating fuels to support zero emission shipping:
1. CO2e not CO2: Some fuels and energy sources are zero-CO2, but
not zero CO2 equivalents (CO2e ). For example, burning ammonia (NH3) in
a marine engine will emit zero CO2, but could emit nitrous oxide (N2O),
which has a global warming potential about 300 times that of CO2.
2. GWP20 not solely GWP100: Reducing pollutants with high 20-year
global warming potential (GWP20), such as black carbon and methane,
helps avoid additional near-term warming, which is essential for
limiting warming to 1.5+C or well-below 2+C. GWP20 is a particularly
useful metric for evaluating ``bridge'' fuels.
3. Well-to-wake not tank-to-wake: Consider the full life-cycle
impacts of marine fuels and energy sources. Some fuels, such as
hydrogen, are zero-emission when they are used, but they must be
sourced from renewable energy, not fossil fuels, to be truly zero-
emission.
Collectively, these three principles highlight that LNG is unlikely
to be a suitable future fuel for shipping. LNG is mostly methane, a
potent GHG that traps 86 to 87 times more heat in the atmosphere than
the same amount of CO2 over a 20-year time period. Methane leakage
during extraction, processing and transport, and methane slip when
burned, means that using LNG is often worse for the climate than
conventional fuels, particularly over shorter timescales. For example,
the most popular LNG engine technology today emits up to 70% more
lifecycle GHGs (20-year GWP) than the cleanest oil-based fuel (marine
gas oil, MGO), as shown in Figure 2.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Pavlenko et al., 2020.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 2: Lifecycle GHG emissions by engine and fuel type, 20-year GWP
centralized vs. distributed marine fuel production
The largest oceangoing vessels can operate up to 50,000 miles,
enough to circumnavigate the Earth twice, before refueling. As a
result, the current centralized fossil fuel bunkering system means that
a relatively small number of ports, mostly foreign, dominate global
marine bunker fuel sales (Figure 3). This is particularly true for
Pacific bunker fuel sales, which are dominated by Asian ports.
Figure 3: Marine bunker fuel sales in 16 busiest ports, 2019 (Source:
Ship & Bunker)
In contrast, zero emission marine fuels like hydrogen and ammonia
can be generated widely and, because of their lower energy density, are
more likely to be sold and used near where they are produced. This is
particularly true of renewable hydrogen. When my colleagues and I
analyzed the potential for zero emission transpacific container
shipping, we found that shifting to liquid hydrogen could generate
substantial new refueling demand at U.S. ports, particularly in
Southern California. Furthermore, our work highlighted the potential
for Aleutian Islands ports to serve as a new refueling stop between
Asia and the West Coast of the United States if hydrogen refueling
infrastructure is built there (Figure 4).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Georgeff et al., 2020.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 4: Hydrogen demand and refueling infrastructure for transpacific
container ships.
references
Comer, B., Chen, C., Stolz, D., and Rutherford, D. (2019) Rotors and
bubbles: Route-based assessment of innovative technologies to
reduce ship fuel consumption and emissions. Retrieved from: https:/
/theicct.org/publications/working-paper-imo-rotorships
Crippa, M., Guizzardi, D., Muntean, M., Schaaf, E., Lo Vullo, E.,
Solazzo, E., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Olivier, J., Vignati, E.
(2019). EDGAR v5.0 Greenhouse Gas Emissions. European Commission,
Joint Research Centre (JRC) [Dataset] PID: http://data.europa.eu/
89h/488dc3de-f072-4810-ab83-47185158ce2a
Faber, J., Hanayama, S., Zhang, S., Pereda, P., Comer, B., Hauerhof,
E., and Xing, H. (2020) Fourth IMO greenhouse gas study. Retrieved
from: International Maritime Organization: https://docs.imo.org/
Georgeff, E., Mao, X., Rutherford, D., and Osipova, L. (2020) Liquid
hydrogen refueling infrastructure to support a zero-emission U.S.-
China container shipping corridor. Retrieved from: https://
theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ZEV-port-infra-
hydrogren-oct2020.pdf
Mao, X., Rutherford, D., Osipova, L., and Comer, B. (2020) Refueling
assessment of a zero-emission container corridor between China and
the United States: Could hydrogen replace fossil fuels? Retrieved
from: https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Zero-
emission-container-corridor-hydrogen-3.5.2020.pdf
Olmer, N., Comer, B., Roy, B., Mao, X., and Rutherford, D. (2017)
Greenhouse gas emissions from global shipping, 2013-2015. Retrieved
from: https://theicct.org/publications/GHG-emissions-global-
shipping-2013-2015
Pavlenko, N., Comer, B., Zhou, Y., and Clark, N. (2020) The climate
implications of using LNG as a marine fuel. Retrieved from: https:/
/theicct.org/publications/climate-impacts-LNG-marine-fuel-2020
Rutherford, D., and Comer, B., (2018) The International Maritime
Organization's initial greenhouse gas strategy. Retrieved from:
https://theicct.org/publications/IMO-initial-GHG-strategy
Sofiev, M., Winebrake, J.J., Johansson, L. et al. Cleaner fuels for
ships provide public health benefits with climate tradeoffs. Nat
Commun 9, 406 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02774-9
Zhou, Y., Pavlenko, N., Rutherford, D., Osipova, L., and Comer, B.
(2020) The potential of liquid biofuels in reducing ship emissions.
Retrieved from: https://theicct.org/publications/marine-biofuels-
sept2020
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Dr. Rutherford.
With that, we will move on to Member questions. Each Member
will be recognized for 5 minutes. And first we will start with
Chairman DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, to Dr. Kindberg, the biofuel that you are going to
use, right now there is virtually no availability for that 2023
target. You are going to need it on both ends of a voyage,
right? So I am just curious about the capability of supplying
what we need to produce this.
Ms. Kindberg. When I had an update on this--and thank you,
Mr. Chairman--when I had an update on the fuel availability on
this, I learned from our Maersk Oil Trading team that we were
talking to something like 35 or 37 different suppliers of these
fuels to start to ramp this up.
The first time you do something like this, it is going to
take some effort. But we feel that this is a really important
signal to send to these suppliers, that there will be a demand
for these. Otherwise, you get into the chicken and the egg.
Mr. DeFazio. All right. And I was also intrigued by the
bio-based ethanol with the polymer lignin. You want to tell me
a little bit about that?
I mean, what is the advantage of adding the lignin? Does
that make it a higher value fuel, or what? What is that?
Ms. Kindberg. Well, lignin actually has the--it comes from
agricultural waste. It is what makes plant stems stiff. So it
is the second most common biopolymer in the world. It is
available from paper mill effluence, all kinds of waste
products. And you can mix it into an alcohol, a renewable
alcohol, and come up with a fuel that has the potential to be
more cost effective.
So as you know, one of the real costs with these new fuels,
or one of the real challenges with these new fuels, is the
cost. You are looking at something like double the cost, even
for some of the fuels that are more readily available.
So I probably ought to stop there, but I am pretty
passionate about this topic, so----
Mr. DeFazio. Well, no, no, I----
Ms. Kindberg [continuing]. If you wanted to know more about
it later, I am glad to have the conversation.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, I just will say, I mean, we have this
issue with straw. My district is the largest producer of grass
seed in the world. And for years they would torch the fields to
get rid of pests, potential weeds, and things like that. When
it stopped raining, finally, in Oregon, the skies would go
dark, and we are all breathing smoke all summer. Finally, it
has been substantially banned, but now there isn't the market
for that straw. So I assume that straw would be a potential
lignin source.
Ms. Kindberg. I would assume so, too. I know that the gas
that is used for making sorghum, for example, is a source of
lignin.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, well, I am going to have to----
Ms. Kindberg. So there could be all kinds of opportunities
here, rather than just burning that stuff.
Mr. DeFazio. Yes. They are dealing with it in alternative
ways, and trying to ship it places. But the market is not that
adequate. So thanks.
And then to Mr. Fanberg, I have got to say, it sounded a
little pessimistic, in terms of where we are vis-a-vis foreign
competition in these areas. Do you want to be a little more
specific about that, and what steps specifically we should take
to begin to at least be partially competitive?
Mr. Fanberg. Well, so on the foreign competition, that one
example I used about our foil ferry project, we do have stiff
competition, and it is very well funded. This is where the
industry is headed with passenger ferries and efficiency, when
it comes to foil-bound ferries. So that was one example of a
very well-funded foreign competitor in the U.K.
I didn't mean to sound overly pessimistic, because I do
think that this meeting, and the action that is happening, not
just from Glosten's point of view, but from other naval
architects, is very encouraging, that we are working hard. But
the funding source is our difficulty when it comes to
demonstrating these new technologies. We have enough funding to
get started, to do design work. But when it comes to actually
demonstrating and putting something on the water, that is where
the gap is.
Mr. DeFazio. So you mentioned potentially MARAD and DOE,
correct?
Mr. Fanberg. Yes, that is true. Yes.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, we will have to pursue that, then. Thank
you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Fanberg. Thank you for the question.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio. Next we will go
to Ranking Member Gibbs.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to
the witnesses for being here today.
The International Maritime Organization has set greenhouse
gas reduction targets of 40 percent in 2030 and 50 percent in
2050 from the 2008 levels. The World Shipping Council says
these targets can only be met if shipping moves from fossil
fuels to low- or zero-carbon fuels that are not available
today.
Mr. Butler, do you envision the industry will be able to
convert existing vessels to the use of these new fuels?
And I guess, if so, at what cost to the shippers and
consumers? And if not, will existing vessels be scrapped early,
and at what cost, Mr. Butler?
Mr. Butler. Thank you, Congressman. A couple of points,
just a clarification on the IMO 2030 goal. That 40 percent is
an efficiency goal, as opposed to an absolute goal.
We do think that, with current efforts underway, we will be
able to meet the 2030 goal with existing ships through
additional efficiency gains. The 2050 goal of 50 percent is an
absolute reduction. And in order to get that, given the growth
in trade, we are absolutely going to have to move to low- and
zero-carbon fuels, and that is going to be the energy
transition that Dr. Rutherford and Dr. Kindberg are talking
about.
In direct answer to your question about retrofitting
existing vessels, there has been a lot of work already done on
existing vessels in order to meet the requirements that we face
in the immediate future. Whether or not existing vessels can be
retrofitted to be essentially zero carbon will depend entirely
on what technologies and fuels we end up using in the 2050
timeframe. And as I testified earlier, we simply don't know yet
what those are going to be. We don't know what is going to come
out on top.
And really, in order to answer your question, we have to do
the research and development that I talked about, so that we
know what technologies we are talking about.
Mr. Gibbs. So there is a lot of unknowns, obviously,
because we don't know what the technologies or the fuels are
going to be. So you don't know if it is going to be one single
fuel, or multiple, different fuels. That is just all up in the
air right now, right?
Mr. Butler. It is. I think, you know, I think for different
ship types and different applications, we have already seen--
and we have heard a bit today, for example--very short-sea and
ferry applications. You can look at things like
electrification, deep sea, transoceanic ships that have to
carry their fuel for thousands and thousands of miles. Those
solutions won't be there.
We will probably see multiple fuels, but you have to
remember that ships move all over the planet. And so, having a
consistent source of fuel, no matter what port you go to, is
pretty critical. I think that, for the deep-sea fleet,
ultimately, that will push us in the direction of a smaller
number of fuels than we have for the coastal fleets.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
Mr. Fanberg, you stated that the Department of Energy and
MARAD should take the lead in developing decarbonized U.S.
vessels. Since the U.S. Coast Guard inspects and documents such
vessels, what role should the Coast Guard play in this process?
Mr. Fanberg. Thank you, Ranking Member Gibbs, for the
question. Yes, the Coast Guard should actually take a very
active role. As I mentioned in the three steps there in the
strategic initiative plan, that third step was to coordinate
with the Coast Guard to get ahead of these future technologies,
and get regulations in place ahead of time, ahead of these
projects that we put in place.
Timely regulatory review, timely new regulations are
critical to any of the success of these projects that are
coming.
Mr. Gibbs. Dr. Kindberg from Maersk, you talked about your
feeder vessel being the first carbon-neutral container vessel.
Was this vessel really a test bed for new technologies to be
used later on your larger oceangoing ships?
And because you also commented about the cost of fuel being
double, so what is the role of this new vessel you just talked
about that would be available in a couple of years, you said?
Ms. Kindberg. Well, this new vessel will be powered by
green methanol. We are actually testing several technologies on
commercial vessels today. For example, we have a battery being
tested on the Maersk Cape Coast, and we have, actually,
commercial use of biofuels on several vessels sailing out of
Europe, because that is where that fuel is available.
So, yes, we are looking at test beds, but this vessel in
particular is to give us some serious operating experience,
particularly with a fuel that has a low flashpoint. In other
words, it is more flammable than the typical bunker fuels that
we are used to using.
Mr. Gibbs. I am out of time, so I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Ranking Member Gibbs. Now I will
recognize myself, to be followed by each Member for an
additional 5 minutes of questions.
With that, Ms. Decas, as I mentioned earlier, in my
district the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control
District has done some remarkable work with vessels on lowering
speeds as they approach the coast and ports through the
``Protecting Blue Whales and Blue Skies'' program. This work
has reduced emissions from vessels still burning fossil fuels
and has had a positive impact on our local air quality.
Ms. Decas, can you talk about how your port has assisted in
getting vessels to participate in reducing speeds, and how
this, coupled with new emissions-reducing technology can help
the port reduce overall emissions and improve air quality for
the surrounding areas?
The public health burden of port emissions often falls on
nearby disadvantaged communities of color. What work has the
Port of Hueneme done to engage local communities to ensure
their concerns are heard?
Ms. Decas. OK, I will start with the first one, Blue
Whales, Blue Skies. Our customers do actively participate in
this program. We strongly encourage it, and several of them
have received awards, and I will submit those awards to you so
they can get into the congressional record.
We are looking in terms of clean air emissions, a variety
of technologies. One is something called a sock. Well, not
quite a sock, but it is a technology, a bonnet system where, if
a vessel comes in, you will be able to cover the stack and
capture emissions that way. That is something that is emerging
as a new look, or a new opportunity for the industry in terms
of capturing at-berth emissions.
In terms of the social equity piece, this is exactly right.
Adjacent communities at ports are often considered to be
sacrifice zones. Particularly in Port Hueneme, we have a very
large minority population. If we can develop green types of
technologies, there are two things that can happen. One,
immediately you have the direct relief from environmental
mitigation. And then two, you can also develop a pipeline and
workforce development into these green technologies, and that
is exactly what we are doing at the Port of Hueneme.
We are looking at ways to interface and get our populations
the education that they need, so there is direct pipelines to
new job and uplifting our social equity at the Port of Hueneme
through workforce developments, local project labor agreements
to hire local community players, and ensure apprentices in
those types of things are happening so that we can really
develop our workforce and uplift the economic health of our
community, access to public healthcare, and all of that.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. And I appreciate you submitting
that information for the record. And without objection, it will
be submitted, regarding the awards that you referenced.
Ms. Decas. Yes.
[The information follows:]
Letter of June 22, 2021, Regarding Port of Hueneme and the Vessel Speed
Reduction Program, from Kristin Decas, Chief Executive Officer and Port
Director, Port of Hueneme-Oxnard Harbor District, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Salud O. Carbajal
June 22, 2021.
Hon. Congressman Salud Carbajal,
2331 Rayburn HOB,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Carbajal,
Thank you for the honor and opportunity to testify on April 15,
2021 at the ``Practical Steps Toward a Carbon-Free Maritime Industry:
Updates on Fuels, Ports, and Technology'' Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Subcommittee hearing. I hope I offered insights that
will help advance the decarbonization of the maritime industry and
bring social equity to underserved communities. As part of my
testimony, a question was raised specific to the work of the Port of
Hueneme and the Vessel Speed Reduction Program (VSR), also known as the
Blue Whales and Blue Skies Program. I committed to providing additional
information for the record that highlights the efforts of our customers
participating in this program and respectfully request this letter be
accepted as my response.
For the purpose of background, the VSR program includes shipping
lanes through the Santa Barbara Channel off the coast of Ventura and
Santa Barbara Counties and encourages participating shipping lines to
reduce their vessel speeds. Under the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) program, participating vessel lines
are awarded financial incentives based on the amount their vessels
travel below 10 knots in the VSR zones. These reductions in vessel
speed translate into lower ship emissions of pollutants and greenhouse
gases, reduced risk of vessel strikes of whales, and reduced ship noise
in the offshore environment. Below are some additional facts relative
to VSR:
Every year, container ships and auto carriers make
thousands of transits in the shipping lanes in the Santa Barbara
Channel region and along the California coast.
These vessels are a significant source of air pollution
and ship strikes on endangered blue, humpback, and fin whales.
The VSR incentive program is a voluntary program where
the Project partners ask vessel operators to slow down to a speed of 10
knots or less.
Reducing air pollution and fatal strikes on endangered
whales.
The Port of Hueneme recognizes that participation in this program
is essential for the environment at multiple levels. In the last few
years, Port customers have received multiple awards for their voluntary
participation in the program. Port of Hueneme customer participation
and award levels are outlined in the table below for your reference:
Port of Hueneme Customer Participation and VSR Awards Earned
Hueneme Customers in VSR in Santa Barbara Channel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Hueneme Carrier Award Level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016............................ Maersk............ n/a
2017............................ Maersk............ n/a
.............................. NYK............... n/a
.............................. K Line............ n/a
2018............................ Maersk............ Silver
.............................. NYK............... Gold
.............................. K Line............ Gold
.............................. Hyundai Glovis.... Gold
2019............................ Maersk............ Gold
.............................. NYK............... Gold
.............................. K Line............ Gold
.............................. Hyundai Glovis.... Silver
2020............................ Maersk............ TBD
.............................. WWL............... Gold
.............................. NYK............... Gold
.............................. K Line............ Gold
.............................. Hyundai Glovis.... Gold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the Port of Hueneme, we are excited to inform you that we are
increasing our engagement with this program. In 2021 we will be
undertaking a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with NOAA to work
collaboratively to increase customer participation in the program and
to more widely acknowledge the important work done by those
participating customers. The important benefits including improved air
quality for our community and the protection of maritime life such as
rare cetaceans which call our local oceans home.
In closing, I would like to add a few additional highlights showing
our commitment to addressing the growing concerns around sustainability
and climate change. The Port of Hueneme was recognized as the greenest
port by the United States Green Shipping Summit in 2017. In 2016, the
Port of Hueneme was also the first port in the State of California to
earn the prestigious Green Marine certification which is an onerous
third-party audit and verification of sustainability practices by
maritime facilities. The Port has continued to be re-certified by Green
Marine annually since 2016. The Port of Hueneme moves over $10 billion
in cargo, provides employment for 15,000 local citizens, and in the
last decade has realized a 26% growth in cargo while reducing diesel
emissions by more than 80%.
Sincerely,
Kristin Decas,
CEO/Port Director, Port of Hueneme.
Mr. Carbajal. And as somebody who grew up in that area, I
am very grateful for, again, the strides that the Port of
Hueneme has made to ensure that there is a reduction of
emissions, and that the public's health is protected. So thank
you.
Mr. Rutherford, last week I introduced legislation that
will double the authorization for the Maritime Environmental
Technical Assistance program, or META, within the Maritime
Administration. This program provides funding for research and
development of new technologies, such as alternative fuel
sources. Can you speak to the sort of research the META program
has resulted in, and how this research has benefitted your
work? And what more could we do to bolster that program?
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Chairman Carbajal. The Maritime
Environmental Technology Assistance program has been an
important program, traditionally, in helping foster new
technologies to support the maritime sector in the United
States.
In particular, ICCT has, over the years, done a variety of
research related to black carbon emissions from international
shipping. Black carbon is the second most important climate
forcer that is emitted from ships. It accounts for somewhere
between 7 and 21 percent of the total greenhouse gas impact of
shipping. And META, in fact, has funded some of that work,
along with partners at the University of California in
Riverside.
So that is, I think, one example of META work in this area
that has been valuable over the years. I certainly think META
will continue to have an important role in research and
development in the sector in a variety of new opportunities
that Morgan and other participants today have discussed.
So certainly, electrification of the maritime sector,
investments in technologies like shore power, alternative fuel
development, and a variety of other technologies need to be
matured for deep-sea ships no later than 2030.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
Mr. Fanberg, I represent a coastal district that has a
large passenger and small vessel presence. Your company's work
on electrification of ferries in Alabama is of great interest
to me, and I can see how it might apply to other vessels in our
domestic fleet. Do you see coastwise and domestic vessels,
whether commercial or recreational, adopting this technology?
And what can Congress do to help accelerate that shift?
Mr. Fanberg. Thank you, Chairman Carbajal, for the
question, and thank you for recognizing our project in Alabama,
the Gee's Bend Ferry. That was a great example of a retrofit,
an existing ferry that was able to secure grant funding and
convert from diesel to all electric.
So your question about transferring that to other entities,
yes, absolutely. Obviously, depending on the route of the ferry
or the small craft, it will depend greatly on that route and
whether or not it is applicable for all-battery power. So there
is no question that there are so many other vessels, as they
age out, and new construction projects start, that these
vessels could be ripe for an all-electric propulsion system.
To encourage that, more projects like the Gee's Bend
Ferry--in my State we are also working on a project up in
Skagit County to replace a 41-year-old diesel-powered passenger
and car ferry. That will be another project that, if we can get
more funding, will be all electric. So, to encourage other
municipalities and ferry systems and private operators to go
all electric, we need more of those initial projects to
showcase the technology and actually show that there is a
reduction in maintenance costs and life-cycle costs when you
can move from a diesel engine to a rotating electric motor. So
very encouraging.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much.
Next we will go to the distinguished gentleman from Long
Beach, Representative Lowenthal.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I greatly
appreciate your describing me, but I really also want to thank
you, Chairman Carbajal, for your leadership in greening the
maritime industry.
And I also want to thank the panel. Reducing maritime
emissions is a really critical priority for the well-being of
our planet, and can have a tremendous impact upon port
communities such as--I represent the largest port complex in
the Western Hemisphere, and that is the port I represent, the
Port of Long Beach, which is part of the L.A.-Long Beach Port
Complex. And so my port backs up right into the Port of L.A. It
is really one large complex.
So my first question is really for Dr. Kindberg.
It is very exciting, Dr. Kindberg, your ability to launch a
carbon-neutral vessel within 2 years, and you have already
begun to talk a little bit about what are some of the issues in
scaling up the technology. And so I have a two-part question.
One is, when am I going to see a carbon-neutral vessel at
the Port of Long Beach? I am interested in your larger ships.
And when am I going to see a carbon-neutral vessel there?
And then, the question is, what else do you need to do to
have the industry move in this direction?
We have seen the progress that you are saying--the industry
side, to have this carbon-neutral vessel within 2 years. What
do you think is needed to ensure that these new shipping fuels,
such as methanol, are pushed to markets so you can become
competitive? What role can we play? Thank you.
Ms. Kindberg. First, let me--Congressman Lowenthal, first
let me thank you for your continued leadership to our industry,
and your long-term involvement. It is always good to see you.
Mr. Lowenthal. Always good to see you, too.
Ms. Kindberg. Yes, it is more difficult this way, isn't it?
I would say that, in terms of when, I would love to bring
some of these bio-based fuel ships here today. And we are
talking to various fuel suppliers and so forth, because, as you
know, to be able to make those long trips we have to have fuel
at both ends. So that is one of the things that we are talking
to a number of people about, to get that fuel arranged, to be
able to do the biofuels, which we can do in existing ships.
And then, for some of the new fuel ships, again, I would
love to see them come here. Again, we are talking to fuel
suppliers. We have to be able to arrange the needed renewable
fuels. And I can get into more detail with you, if you are
interested in more detail on that. But I won't take up all of
your time with my enthusiasm here.
Mr. Lowenthal. Well, I was just wondering, what role do you
think that the Federal Government and this committee, under the
leadership of Representative Carbajal, can play in bringing
these fuels to market?
Ms. Kindberg. Well, I would have to say, first of all,
engage actively in setting the international frameworks for the
global industry. We need goals and frameworks that are future-
proof, and those are being discussed right now. So the U.S.
needs to play a very active role in those discussions.
And we need to establish mechanisms that encourage and
reward early actors, and bring up the laggards, both the carrot
and the stick.
And we need global mechanisms to develop those new fuels
and make them available and affordable.
I also think the U.S. could leverage our R&D muscle and
decades of experience in renewables to accelerate work on new
fuels and energy systems, and the landside infrastructure to
support them: the national labs, the universities. We have got
tremendous research muscle here, and we could use it and
address that challenge.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I have one question also
following up on this to Mr. Rutherford, if I have time.
Mr. Rutherford, I am very pleased. I think it was in your
written testimony, you talked about the possibility of hydrogen
infrastructure in the San Pedro Bay. Well, that is the Ports of
L.A.-Long Beach. Can you talk more about how we can develop and
deploy this technology?
I have not heard very much discussion of hydrogen fuel
cells. And maybe you can talk about that, or hydrogen
infrastructure that would be needed to propel hydrogen as an
alternative fuel.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you for the question, Congressman
Lowenthal. I am a little bit concerned about the time. I am
happy to provide more details for the record, but within my
written testimony there are several links to studies that my
organization have completed on this question. So I encourage
you to review those, and I am happy to provide additional
details for the record.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I will do that, also, and request
that, Mr. Rutherford.
I believe, Ms.--I don't have in front of me----
Mr. Carbajal. I think you are out of time, Mr. Lowenthal.
We are going to have a second round of questions, so you
certainly----
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
Mr. Carbajal [continuing]. You are welcome back. Thank you
so much, Mr. Lowenthal.
With that we will go to the other distinguished gentleman
from the State of Washington, Representative Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Fanberg, you might not be surprised I am going to ask
you some questions. Skagit County is in my district, and Guemes
Island Ferry is the project you are talking about with Skagit.
What are the physics of an electric-powered ferry in a channel
like the Guemes Channel, which has tidal currents running back
and forth, compared to diesel power? And what are the
challenges of physics on that?
Mr. Fanberg. The challenges--you are talking about an area
that has some extreme currents. And so that was part of our
project, was to look at the environmental aspects of going to
all electric.
So when it comes to physics, it is, obviously, all about
thrust and how quickly we can react in that channel, not only
due to the environmental aspects, but also it is highly
trafficked through that channel, as well, as you know.
So when it comes to the design, it is really about either
matching what a diesel-powered vessel can do when it comes to
maneuverability. We also can look at different types of
propulsion, whether it is an azimuthing thruster that can move
the vessel in any direction, or even the propeller design can
go into some of the physics and the maneuverability aspects.
Mr. Larsen. OK, so there are other design features you can
incorporate in order to address any of the thrust challenges
you get with electric versus the classic diesel.
Mr. Fanberg. Absolutely.
Mr. Larsen. Yes. On that, Whatcom County, which is just
north, has the ferry to Lummi Island, and they are looking at
replacing their ferry, as well.
Mr. Fanberg. Right.
Mr. Larsen. And you mentioned the funding issue. Just a
note: in the INVEST in America bill last year, which was
incorporated into the Moving Forward bill last year, we did
include low- and no-emission ferry funding in that. And I will
be pursuing that again this year, over the next couple of
weeks, as we put together the infrastructure bill. So there are
opportunities.
Our State ferry system is the largest, based on vehicles
and passengers, as well. Those are, by scale, much larger
ferries than, say, what we are looking at in Skagit County. And
I don't know if you are involved with the State ferry system
discussion on electric, I know that some other folks are.
Again, getting to questions of scale, and thrust, and
maneuverability, to make this a reality--that is where I am
getting at, I want to make this reality--what do we need to be
thinking about, when it comes to these larger platforms,
compared to the smaller platforms you will see in Skagit?
Mr. Fanberg. Congressman Larsen, good question, and yes, we
are involved in the Washington State ferry projects. You know,
there are two avenues there. They are looking to convert,
actually, the ferry that I take home every day, the existing
vessel, another conversion project to all electric. And then
the new class of ferries, one of those, the fifth of the class,
is in development to be an all-electric ferry.
So the big issue when it comes to these longer routes--both
of those will be all electric--it is that infrastructure
problem, getting the power to the dock. We have a longer route.
And if you don't have enough battery capacity to do a round
trip, it is about getting the infrastructure at both ends of
the dock, so you can recharge rapidly to make your return trip.
So that is the big challenge right there--the battery
technology exists, the engineering power is there to convert
the vessels or to design them. It comes down to infrastructure
and making sure we have power where we need it.
Mr. Larsen. Yes, and I don't mean to ask this facetiously,
but just as a matter of scale, to go from Anacortes to Friday
Harbor with stops in Orcas and Shaw--and I invite everyone to
my district to do that, by the way, call me any time--does the
battery need to be as big as the ferry to make that round trip,
what is the scale?
Because you are not stopping, you don't get to stop. It is
not really long enough. You land the ferry, you unload your
load, you leave. Hopefully, all within 20 minutes.
Mr. Fanberg. Those ferries that are existing are large
enough for the density of the battery. So again, battery
technology has come a long way--the power you can get in a
footprint now, compared to 10 years ago, where you probably
physically couldn't get a battery on those vessels to make
those routes. So the density and the technology has come a long
way, where the ferry sizes that are existing up there, it
shouldn't be a problem to get the right-sized battery.
Mr. Larsen. Yes, OK. Well, again, I will, in my last 10
seconds, just remind folks we did put language in the Moving
Forward Act, which was in the INVEST in America Act. We will be
pursuing that again. My office will be pursuing that again as
part of the American Jobs Plan.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Larsen.
Now we are going to proceed with another round of questions
for those Members that would like to ask additional questions.
Each Member will be recognized for 5 additional minutes, and I
will start with myself.
In your testimony, Dr. Kindberg, you say that Maersk is
responsible for .1 percent of the global CO2 emissions. Most
companies would not volunteer that information. You then
proceed to explain Maersk's plan to exceed the IMO's goals on
emissions. Why is Maersk seemingly going above and beyond the
international standard?
Is there a business case to be made here?
Ms. Kindberg. Well, first, of course, the right answer is
that it is the right thing to do. So thanks for asking that
question.
But also, it is very important that our customers provide
us demand signals that this is indeed something that they want,
that they need, and that they are expecting us to do. And we
actually have customers who are paying a premium today to ship
net-zero-carbon shipping. That is a change just in the last 2
years.
So we are really starting to see, I would have to say, a
global change among cargo owners and shippers to really support
some of these new investments.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
Mr. Butler, what are the requirements that must be
developed for non-carbon-based fuel delivery and storage?
Mr. Butler. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of things that
have to happen, seemingly all at once, but at the same time
they have to happen, I think, in a certain order, just as a
matter of logic.
I think, in answer to your question, when you think about,
for example, storage and delivery, the first thing you have to
figure out is, well, what is it that I am storing and
delivering? So we have to look at what technologies can safely
be placed on the ships.
And then you turn to the--probably in many ways--much more
daunting question of, OK, how do we produce those fuels in a
way that is itself low-carbon or no-carbon?
We have heard a lot of talk about electricity today. That
is not going to work on big ships. But just to take that as an
example, you can power a vessel with electricity, but if the
electricity is being generated by a coal-fired powerplant, you
haven't done a lot for greenhouse gas. So you do----
Mr. Carbajal. We lost your microphone, Mr. Butler.
Mr. Butler. Is it back now?
Mr. Carbajal. We can hear you, just a little fainter than
before. Keep going, you are fine.
Mr. Butler. So, to get back to the direct answer to the
question, first you need to know what the fuel is, and then you
have to figure out what are the constraints on storage,
reduction, and transportation of that fuel to make sure that it
is available all the places that it has to be. So there is a
series of steps that you have to take logically in order to
answer that question.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much.
And this is to all witnesses: While we understand that
research and development is underway, which fuels are best
suited for international shipping, coastwise shipping, small
passenger vessels, and tugboats?
[Pause.]
Voice. I guess I can go first.
Mr. Carbajal. Don't all at once, now.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Fanberg. If I could go first, Chairman Carbajal, I
think, from my perspective as an engineer, you look at the
technologies that are already in development and are already
somewhat proven. So battery technology is, as you heard me
mention, for more of the short routes when it comes to harbor
craft and passenger ferries.
And then, of course, hydrogen is--it might not be the most
ideal going forward, and there may be better fuels in the
future. But right now it actually could be used, and very
efficiently, and there is good fuel cell technology that could
be powered by hydrogen. There could be future technology
[inaudible] but right now those are the two technologies that
are the most promising.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
Anyone else?
Ms. Decas. I will go. Chairman Carbajal, I will just say,
from an infrastructure side, from the port's standpoint, not
looking at vessel technology, the electric infrastructure is
proven at ports. I will add, though, that there is one
challenge, and one I think Congress should influence, is entry
into--and incentivize entry into the market. There is only one
producer of shoreside power system, a company called Cavotec.
So the ports in California compete for mechanics. There is
really only one mechanic. So if our system goes down, there is
only one mechanic that can come out, and we compete for that.
So entry to market is really important, and encouraging R&D in
these technologies.
And then, just in terms of our handling equipment, and
other infrastructure development, we too are looking at
hydrogen solutions as a potential, and hydrogen fuel cells to
run port operations that would complement what the vessel
industry is doing.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
Why don't you conclude, Mr. Rutherford?
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Chairman Carbajal, I very much
agree with Morgan and Kristin on this.
To a first approximation, the problem is burning carbon
fuels. So if you can move away from a fuel that contains
carbon, and move towards a fuel that can support
electrification of ships, starting with the ships near port and
eventually branching out to the deep-sea ships, that is the
ultimate long-term solution. So there we are talking about
battery electric, hydrogen, and then some sort of hydrogen
carrier, for example, ammonia or potentially green methanol.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
And Ms. Kindberg, I see you wanted to say something. So in
conclusion, if you could, conclude.
Ms. Kindberg. Thank you. I just can tell you what we are
working on for our big ships. We are focusing on biodiesel and
biofuels, renewable alcohols, those lignin fuels that I
mentioned, the lignin alcohol blends, and ammonia. The ammonia
is a longer term option, due to safety and design
considerations. So that is where we are really focusing. You
have to have a really energy-dense fuel to be able to cross the
Pacific.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
Now, proceeding with the same complementary approach of all
my colleagues, I will go to our distinguished ranking member
from Ohio, Mr. Gibbs.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Distinguished Chairman.
Mr. Butler, the organization, the World Shipping Council,
proposes to establish an industry-funded International Maritime
Research and Development Board and International Maritime
Research Fund to accelerate the development of technologies to
achieve low- and zero-carbon fuels. What happens if the
industry-funded international research program is not
established, and market-based measures are left to drive the
industry to shift to cleaner fuel technologies, Mr. Butler?
Mr. Butler. Congressman Gibbs, I would rather focus on what
happens if it is implemented. But to answer your question
directly, without a well-funded, international, coordinated
research and development effort, it is going to take the
industry much longer to figure out what technologies are----
Mr. Gibbs. Can you speak up just a little bit? You are kind
of fading away there.
Mr. Butler. Sure. Without that research and development
activity, it is going to take the industry much longer to
figure out which technologies and which fuels are going to be
viable to allow us to decarbonize. That translates into it
takes us much longer to actually get the job done, and it also
translates into a tremendous amount of investment uncertainty
in the interim.
So it is really critical that we use this mechanism of the
IMRB to jump-start the technological work. The sooner we do
that, the sooner you see the private investment come off of the
sidelines and go into building the infrastructure necessary to
supply those fuels. So it is really a question of timing, and
time is not on our side. So it is absolutely critical that we
take this step.
Mr. Gibbs. Dr. Kindberg, one of your colleagues sits on the
board of the World Shipping Council. And after hearing Mr.
Butler's testimony, I noted that you were kind of silent in
your testimony about the establishment of this International
Maritime Research and Development Board and International
Maritime Research Fund. Would you like to share your views on
the establishment of this fund and development board?
Ms. Kindberg. We absolutely support the proposal. There
does need to be a way to coordinate this work globally. Without
that coordination--and it is not just the funding, it is also
the convening power of a body like this that could ensure that
you can work together without jeopardizing antitrust
considerations and things like that.
So this organization would do more than just handle the
money, it would also convene and designate kinds of projects
that would enable us to really accelerate this work, and
perhaps avoid dead ends.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
Dr. Rutherford, I was trying to understand on your figure 3
in your testimony. You have Singapore--it almost looks like
they have a monopoly on refueling, or they move a lot more fuel
than all the rest of the ports around the world. Was there
something significant about that? Is Singapore so big that they
move a lot of fuel?
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Ranking Member Gibbs. Yes,
Singapore definitely has advantages in terms of geography, and
also economies of scale for selling shipping fuels.
One of the points I was trying to make with that figure is
that, because of today's centralized fossil fuel bunkering
system, it is possible for ports outside of the U.S. to capture
most of the fuel sales markets. That is because ships today are
designed to have huge operating ranges. The largest oceangoing
vessels, containerships or tanker ships, they are capable of
operating up to 50,000 miles without refueling. Just to put
that into perspective, that is a long-enough distance to
circumnavigate the world twice without refueling. As a result,
those ships can refuel once in a major hub like Singapore, and
then operate up to 90 days before refueling, back and forth to
the United States, for example.
In contrast, some of these emerging zero-carbon fuels have
a lower energy density. That means that there will need to be
some minor operational or design changes to make them work. But
it also means that the fuels can be generated and used closer
to port, and that could create new business opportunities, for
example, in the ports of southern California that Congressman
Lowenthal was referencing earlier.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, and my time is up. I will just make
one quick comment, Mr. Chairman. It seems like there might be a
lot of opportunities on some of these new biofuels that we
might be able to get market share for that.
Mr. Carbajal. Absolutely.
Mr. Gibbs. I just wanted to mention that. So thank you, I
yield back.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Ranking Member Gibbs. And next we
will go to Representative Auchincloss.
Mr. Auchincloss. I would like to thank Chairman Carbajal
for convening this timely and important hearing.
It is going to take a bold, all-of-Government approach to
overcome the challenges of the climate crisis, and this hearing
gives us the opportunity to delve into some aspects of that.
And in my district, local colleges and businesses are already
investing in the R&D necessary to strengthen the maritime
workforce.
Dr. Kindberg, I am particularly happy to get to speak with
you today, because Maersk has partnered with Bristol Community
College in my district to train students in wind skills
development as part of the college's National Offshore Wind
Institute, NOWI.
Now, this year your company sold the world's first product
tanker fit with wind propulsion technology to Norsepower Rotor
Sails on board, and they showcased the drop in fuel
consumption.
So my question is, is there the opportunity to take, at the
nexus of offshore wind and wind propulsion technology, a
workforce development approach that trains people like the
students of Bristol Community College in the skills necessary
to advance both of those industries?
Ms. Kindberg. And I must confess that I am not familiar
with the program at Bristol Community College, and I apologize
for that. We do work with colleges around the world and are big
believers in workforce development. There will be a whole new
set of skills needed to both build and install these new
technologies, and to maintain them, and to handle all these
fueling systems. So there absolutely will be needs for
workforce development to support all of these things.
Mr. Auchincloss. And do you think that there is--if you
think of, like, a Venn diagram of the skills necessary to do
offshore wind construction and maintenance and the skills
necessary to do wind propulsion technology, how much of an
overlap is there in terms of the programming that you would
need for workforce development?
Ms. Kindberg. You know, I am not that familiar with Maersk
tankers. The Flettner rotors that they have actually been
using, I have heard that they are getting good results. But I
am not an expert on that one. I am happy to get you some
information, if you need.
Mr. Auchincloss. I would be interested in that.
Mr. Fanberg, perhaps I could turn to you and get your
thoughts on this. Some ports are natural hubs for connecting
offshore wind, like the places in my district--Brayton Point,
for example, in Somerset, Massachusetts. My district is right
onshore of the greatest natural offshore wind resource, really,
in the Western Hemisphere, and we are working hard to take
advantage of that, in creating a cluster in southeastern
Massachusetts devoted to offshore wind. Do you see a nexus
between offshore wind manufacturing, logistics, R&D, with wind
propulsion for international shipping?
Mr. Fanberg. Thank you, Representative Auchincloss.
So the crossover between the wind energy and wind
technology for vessels, there is a--first of all, supporting
the offshore wind industry off the coast, the east coast, is
going to be a very large boom for the whole maritime industry
in general. So maybe there is no crossover between the skill
set for installing wind turbines and the skill set for
operating a vessel with--like Maersk with the Flettner rotor,
but there certainly will be a crossover in the maritime
industry when it comes to jobs, and the maritime industry
together.
I don't necessarily see a crossover in the skill set for
offshore wind and operating a vessel with Flettner rotors or
other wind technology, except for the engineering side of
things. I think, when it comes to the installation of offshore
wind, certainly when we do deep-sea offshore wind, there is a
crossover in skill set for naval architects to combine both of
those technologies. So there is something there.
Mr. Auchincloss. That is helpful feedback, I appreciate
that.
One of the things I expect Massachusetts will become a
leader on is not just the installation, maintenance, operation,
but also the latest R&D around this. Massachusetts is famous
for its product development and putting the best minds to work
on hard manufacturing problems. And I could see that there
could be synergies between the best R&D for offshore wind and
taking some of those learnings and applying them to wind
propulsion. And I think Bristol Community College might be one
of the leading centers of excellence for that.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Representative Auchincloss. Next
we will go to Representative Malliotakis.
Ms. Malliotakis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just
wanted to follow up on some of the questions of the ranking
member regarding achieving targets for greenhouse gas reduction
that has been set up by the International Maritime
Organization.
In particular, I was wondering--and I guess this is a
question for Mr. Butler--if you envision the industry being
able to convert existing vessels to these new fuels. You
touched on it slightly, but I am wondering what you would think
the cost to shippers and consumers would be. And if they were
to scrap existing vessels early, what would be the impact on
that, as well?
And if you have any information or insight into the
construction costs of new decarbonized vessels compared to the
current vessels.
Mr. Butler. Congresswoman, thank you for the question. I
will ask first whether you can hear me. I know there was a
problem.
Ms. Malliotakis. Yes, we can.
Mr. Butler. OK, great. I mean, I am sorry to say that I
can't give you very precise numbers about the cost of all of
this, because we don't know quite yet what this is.
You know, I have spoken earlier, we don't know which fuels
and their related technologies are going to end up being the
long-haul investments that the industry makes for the deep-sea
sector. And whether or not those technologies and fuels will be
suitable for retrofit is similarly an open question.
I think it is safe to say that, at least in the short term,
as we make this conversion, costs are going to go up. I think
we need to be honest about that, and I really can't see a
scenario where, at least based on what we know now, we have a
no-cost transition. There will be cost. And that is one of the
reasons that it is so absolutely critical that we avoid going
down dead ends. And that means doing the research and
development on the front end to figure out as early as possible
which technologies are going to pan out.
Ms. Malliotakis. Thank you, I appreciate that. And
certainly, looking at the economic impact of all this, I think,
should be a priority before we go down this path.
And the second question I have, in recent conversations
with the aviation industry, they had been talking about
technology that they feel they could implement that would
reduce fuel emissions. And this is a question for everyone, if
you see that anything specific that you can share with us
regarding possibly the same opportunities in the shipping and
vessel industry.
Ms. Kindberg. Well, shall I jump into that one first?
Ms. Malliotakis. Sure.
Ms. Kindberg. And thank you for your question. I am not
sure exactly which technology you are talking about in the
aviation industry, but I can tell you that, over the last 5
years, we have done what we called our radical retrofit program
to make dramatic energy efficiency improvements on about 100 of
our vessels. And that program cost us $1 billion.
Ms. Malliotakis. Could you share a little more about some
of the impact that has had, and how many vessels, and sort of
the success that you have seen?
Ms. Kindberg. In that particular case--well, some of the
success--these are vessels that commonly call the United
States. And let me give an example in southern California--
sorry, we also do call Port Authority of New York, New Jersey.
But the example in southern California is one I happen to know
quite well, because we did a study with the ports and with
Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
So not only did we improve energy efficiency of those
vessels, we also reduced underwater radiated noise, which has
an impact on the whales in Santa Barbara Channel and other
places. So that happened to be a win-win. But we were just very
fortunate to be able to have found that sweet spot. And we hope
that underwater radiated noise and other environmental impacts
can also be benefitted. So we really have to look at the whole
picture, and not just greenhouse gases.
Ms. Malliotakis. OK.
Ms. Decas. Congresswoman, to complement what Maersk is
saying, we do take on one of their vessels, a liner service,
once a week in the Port of Hueneme, and they religiously plug
in their vessel at berth, and that has led to profound impacts
on the environment locally, here in our community, 85 percent
reductions from shoreside power systems. So that is a
technology worth pursuing.
And I think, as the conversation moves forward around all
these new fuels in the shipping industry, it is really
important that ports are at the table, so they understand the
infrastructure needs that are going to drive and coordinate
with what is happening on the vessel side, so we are not
working in silos, building one infrastructure at the ports and
a different infrastructure for the vessels. So that is going to
be a very important part of the conversation.
Ms. Malliotakis. Thank you.
Does anyone have any comments on what the potential impact
will be of establishing zero-emission refueling stations in
American ports, both environmentally and economically?
Ms. Decas. I will speak to that. I can tell that you--and
Port of Hueneme is interesting. We had $4 million in our
reserves when I started in 2012, when we were regulated, to
build a $14 million system, and we got it done. So it takes
innovation and creativity, and working with different partners
and investment. And we got it all across the board from the
State, from the EPA. We got a new market tax credit deal to
help us build the infrastructure to scale that up. And the
larger ports, L.A. and Long Beach, invested well over $100
million in infrastructure.
But again, the payoff has been in the return to the
communities, in terms of really significant and tangible
emission reductions. So it is a solid investment, but the ports
can't bear those costs alone, that we do need the assistance
and the subsidies coming from State and Federal Governments so
that we can really transition and transform into a decarbonized
transportation network. In my testimony I said it is going to
be about $35 million in California alone to retrofit our ports
to zero-emission electric technology.
Ms. Malliotakis. Thank you.
Mr. Carbajal. With that, that concludes our hearing for
today.
I would like to thank each of the witnesses for their
testimony today. I ask unanimous consent that the record of
today's hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses
have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to
them in writing.
I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open
for 15 days for any additional comments and information
submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record
of today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
The subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:41 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chair Carbajal and Ranking Member Gibbs, for holding
this hearing today.
As my colleagues on this Committee know, everything in this country
moves.
And as the current cargo surge has reminded us, 99 percent of
everything moves at some point by water.
Many consumer goods and parts needed for U.S. manufacturing arrive
by container vessels, and any added costs placed on ocean carriers may
get offset by cost increases for consumers and manufacturers.
I would also note that today, U.S. agriculture exporters are being
devastated by higher shipping costs related to the existing container
shortages in many areas. We can see firsthand the need to keep shipping
rates at reasonable levels.
Therefore, we have to be mindful of how any new requirements on
industry will add to the cost of transporting goods. With that said, I
look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how they see the
future of shipping and efforts being made to reduce the maritime
industry's impact on the environment.
Again, I thank the Chair, the Ranking Member, and the witnesses,
and I yield back.
Statement of Jennifer States, Director for Blue Economy, DNV Energy and
Maritime North America, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Bob Gibbs
I. Introduction
Chairman Carbajal, Ranking Member Gibbs, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement for
the record of the Subcommittee's recent hearing, Practical Steps Toward
a Carbon-Free Maritime Industry. My name is Jennifer States, and I am
the Director for Blue Economy with DNV.
DNV is the independent expert in risk management and quality
assurance. Driven by our purpose to safeguard life, property, and the
environment, we empower our customers and their stakeholders with facts
and reliable insights to make critical decisions with confidence. As a
trusted voice for many of the world's most successful organizations, we
use our knowledge to advance safety and performance, set industry
standards and benchmarks, and inspire and invent solutions to tackle
global transformations.
In the maritime industry, DNV is the world's leading classification
society and a recognized advisor. We enhance safety, quality, energy
efficiency and environmental performance of the global shipping
industry--across all vessel types and offshore structures.
In the energy industry, DNV provides assurance to the entire energy
value chain through its advisory, monitoring, verification, and
certification services. As the world's leading resource of independent
energy experts and technical advisors, DNV helps industries and
governments to navigate the many complex, interrelated transitions
taking place globally and regionally. DNV is committed to realizing the
goals of the Paris Agreement, and supports customers to transition
faster to a deeply decarbonized energy system.
DNV was established in Norway in 1864 and has been operating in the
United States for 123 years, since 1898. DNV USA is headquartered in
Katy, Texas, and has 39 offices in 22 states, including major hubs in
California, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. We employ 12,000 people worldwide
(2,300 in the USA), and in 2020 generated global revenues of $2.4
billion ($500 million in the USA). DNV is wholly owned by an
independent foundation and invests five percent of its revenue in
research and development.
Decarbonizing the maritime industry requires a multifaceted
approach that includes ships (the energy end-user), ports and shoreside
infrastructure (to service and deliver the energy that the ships will
use), and collaborative, cross-sector innovation to develop effective
solutions for the ecosystem. Our statement discusses each of these
three facets, followed by a summary of DNV's five recommendations to
the Subcommittee, which are:
1. Develop a national maritime decarbonization strategy.
2. Renew the aging U.S.-flag merchant fleet.
3. Prioritize research, development, demonstration, and deployment
funding for decarbonizing ships, ports, and supporting infrastructure.
4. Improve the framework and funding mechanisms with regional
maritime cluster organizations to implement collaborative demonstration
projects.
5. Set a uniform regulatory framework for port greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions.
II. Reducing carbon emissions from ships
Shipping's main challenge over the current decade is to prepare for
and start on a decarbonization pathway. Alternative carbon-neutral
fuels are essential for achieving International Maritime Organization
(IMO) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction goals in 2050, and the
only practical way for shipping to achieve the ultimate vision of full
decarbonization as soon as possible before 2100.
Shipping is experiencing increasing pressure to decarbonize its
operations and to reduce emissions to air. Most notably, in April 2018
the IMO adopted an ambitious GHG emissions-reduction strategy for
international shipping. Increasingly, we also see key stakeholders such
as banks and cargo owners focusing on decarbonization, and legislation
was introduced at the end of the 116th Congress to reduce/eliminate
vessel emissions from ocean transportation (H.R. 8632, Ocean-Based
Climate Solutions Act). All this points to a changing business
environment for ships. It will shape the future fleet in important
ways, particularly in the choice of fuels and technologies. This will
likely impact costs, asset values and earning capacity more
significantly than observed in the past.
In contrast to previous environmental requirements, meeting GHG
targets requires fundamentally more challenging technological and
operational changes for shipping. The challenges include a transition
to new and alternative zero-carbon/carbon-neutral fuels and
unconventional technologies. In addition, the energy efficiency of
ships requires rethinking, with the uptake of proven energy-recovery
and energy-efficiency technologies to be intensified. These challenges
also place a new and stronger focus on system-level thinking and
integration of all available technologies. While the industry has been
discussing emissions reduction for many years, all the most likely
solutions face challenges and barriers. Meanwhile, shipowners postpone
investment in new ships for fear of ordering a vessel that will be
unacceptable under future GHG regulations.
The decarbonization of shipping is part of a global transition
across all industries towards greater use of renewable energy and less
of fossil fuels. We have some ideas today on possible fuels for
widespread adaptation in the decades to come, but cannot point to an
entirely safe bet for the future at this point of time. In the 2019
edition of our Energy Transition Outlook, we predicted that carbon-
neutral fuels will likely supply around 40% of the total energy for
international shipping in mid-century if the IMO's ambitions for
reducing GHGs are to be achieved. The type and the pace of future
regulations have an important role to play here, together with the
future global energy mix, as well as fuel price and infrastructure
development.
An increasing number of studies consider ways shipping could
decarbonize, developing scenarios for the transition from conventional
to zero-carbon or carbon-neutral fuels, along with technical and
operational energy optimization. The zero-carbon/carbon-neutral fuels
will need producing from three primary energy sources; sustainably
provided biomass, renewable electricity, or fossil fuels with carbon
capture and storage (CCS). Decarbonization could be especially
challenging in the deep-sea segment, which generates 80% of the global
fleet's CO2 emissions.
U.S. Government commitment
Subsequent to the Subcommittee's hearing, the Honorable John Kerry,
the U.S. Special Presidential Envoy on Climate Change, announced on 20
April 2021 that President Biden is committed to achieving low to zero
emissions from shipping by no later than 2050 and has recommitted the
U.S. to discussions, debate and decisions at the IMO on GHG controls
for international shipping.
DNV welcomes and supports the U.S. Government's commitment of
working with countries in the IMO. DNV recommends the United States
develop a national action plan to reduce GHG emissions from
international shipping, and thus align with the IMO's Marine
Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) 75 resolution urging Member
States to develop and update a voluntary National Action Plan (NAP).
In addition to a national action plan for the U.S. international
fleet, DNV recommends the United States also develop a maritime
decarbonization strategy for the its domestic fleet by working across
relevant agencies and with industry engagement. Based on DNV's
international experience supporting governments with the development of
their domestic maritime decarbonization strategies, public-private
partnerships have successfully accelerated actionable goals. Some
examples are:
Washington Maritime Blue, USA: A cluster alliance
launched by Washington State, committed to the development of maritime
business, technology, and practices that promote a sustainable future
contributing to economic growth, ecological health, and thriving
communities. Discussed further in Section IV, below.
Green Shipping Program, Norway: A public-private
partnership program supporting the Norwegian Maritime Cluster's GHG
initiatives to gather the maritime industry and escalate investment in
green shipping.
Maritime Decarbonization Center, Singapore: Foundation
Det Norske Veritas--which owns DNV Group--has teamed up with the
Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) and five other industry
leaders to establish a maritime decarbonization center in Singapore,
supported by contributions from the founding members totaling $90
million. The center's mission is to catalyze and facilitate
decarbonization in the maritime sector.
E4ships, Germany: promoting the use of fuel-cell systems
and electric fuels in shipping.
Vancouver Maritime Centre for Climate, Canada: an
industry-led initiative with support from the Government of Canada,
dedicated to accelerating the transition to a zero emissions shipping
industry in British Columbia.
Near-term actions benefitting decarbonization of shipping
There are several near-term measures that can be taken to benefit
decarbonization of the U.S. fleet. These measures also generate
opportunities beyond decarbonization, including the creation of jobs in
the maritime industry, in the American shipbuilding industry and in the
related supply chains.
To support near-term carbon reduction of the U.S. fleet, DNV
recommends an increase of the existing funding to the Federal Ship
Financing Program (MARAD Title XI) and the establishment of a priority
for new ships that reduce their GHG emissions to federal and
international levels. This is the primary financing mechanism for U.S.
shipbuilding. With an average age of 24.5 years for the U.S. flag fleet
compared to 13.3 years for the international fleet, the renewal of the
U.S. flag fleet will contribute significantly towards the U.S. and IMO
2030 and 2050 GHG reduction goals. Expanding the use of Capital
Construction Funds (CCFs) or Construction Reserve Funds (CRFs), which
provide deferred tax treatment on private capital used for
shipbuilding/repair, could also increase the amount of private
investment.
In November 2020, the IMO introduced an Energy Efficiency Existing
Ship Index (EEXI) when it approved amendments to MARPOL Annex VI at its
MEPC 75 session. Subject to adoption at IMO's MEPC 76 in June this
year, the requirements will enter into force in 2023. The EEXI will
apply to all existing vessels above 400 gross tons and falling under
MARPOL Annex VI. Guidelines on calculations, surveys, and verification
of the EEXI will follow and be finalized at MEPC 76. Nevertheless, as
the EEXI is the extension to existing ships of the newbuilding-related
Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI), most procedures will be the same
as for the EEDI (which has been applicable since early 2015), with some
adaptions regarding limited access to design data. DNV findings show
that some shipowners, including those of U.S.-flag ships engaged in
international trade, may have challenges to meet the intended
requirements. Therefore, these ships' urgent replacement will also
benefit the decarbonization of the U.S. fleet.
DNV also recommends that emissions reduction become a part of the
selection criteria for funding/financing opportunities at federal
agencies such as the Departments of Energy, Transportation, Commerce,
Interior, and Homeland Security, and at independent agencies such as
the EPA. The emissions reductions should be validated by U.S.
shipowners and shipyards associations, plus MARAD, at a minimum. There
are similar international programs that can be referenced, such as:
Poseidon Principles launched in 2019 by three global
shipping banks to provide a framework for integrating climate
considerations into lending decisions that promote decarbonization of
international shipping. Today, 24 leading banks, jointly representing
approximately $175 billion in shipping finance, have aligned in
commitment to the Poseidon Principles.
Sea Cargo Charter was born from inside the Poseidon
Principles to provide a global framework for aligning chartering
activities with responsible environmental behavior to promote
international shipping's decarbonization. Today, 20 major ship
charterers are signatories.
Promotion of alternative fuels and technologies to support
decarbonization of shipping
The future fuel and technology picture for the shipping industry is
complex and getting more so. In the 2020 edition of our Maritime
Forecast to 2050, DNV set out three decarbonization pathways forward
and a detailed library of 30 scenarios we hope will enhance shipowners'
ability to navigate technological, regulatory and market uncertainty
due to decarbonization--and maintain their vessels' competitiveness,
profitability and value over time.
Our key messages are worth repeating here:
1. Over the next decade the shipping industry needs to start
rolling out the next-generation ships running on carbon-neutral fuels.
This will require accelerated technology development, large-scale pilot
projects for deep-sea vessels and safety standards development.
2. A clear and robust regulatory framework must be in place to
ensure the global availability of large volumes of carbon-neutral
fuels; to enable their safe transportation, storage and use; and, to
incentivize their uptake by ocean carriers while retaining a level
playing field in the ocean transportation marketplace.
3. Picking the wrong fuel solution today can lead to a significant
competitive disadvantage. Managing decarbonization risks is critical to
protecting a vessel's future value, profitability and competitiveness,
and for shipowners to ensure that their ships are on an acceptable GHG
emission trajectory.
To help ship owners and other maritime stakeholders monitor the
global uptake of alternative fuels and assess the best options for
their own vessels, DNV developed the Alternative Fuels Insight (AFI)
platform. AFI provides a complete overview on developments of
alternative fuels and technologies, covering both investments on ships
and in bunkering infrastructure. A core aim is to improve clarity for a
range of stakeholders allowing them to make informed decisions. It will
assist ship owners in selecting a fuel for the vessels they order today
and in coming years, and also fuel suppliers weighing up investment in
new bunkering infrastructure. Maritime authorities will benefit from
increased transparency, while equipment suppliers can gather
intelligence for product development strategies.
The U.S. Government can assist through promoting research,
demonstration, and development of emerging technologies. The Maritime
Administration (MARAD) does this through its Maritime Environmental and
Technical Assistance (META) Program, with which it is funding several
projects on alternative fuels (e.g., biofuels, LNG, methanol) and
alternative energy (e.g., battery for auxiliary power and for hybrid
use, fuel cells) to support decarbonization. Some examples are:
SF-Breeze, a zero-emission, hydrogen fuel cell, high-
speed passenger ferry, and establishment of a hydrogen refueling
capability in San Francisco Bay, and
Zero-V, a zero-emission, hydrogen fuel cell, coastal
research vessel.
DNV recommends that MARAD META funding be expanded substantially to
accelerate research and development into alternative fuels and
alternative energy to support maritime decarbonization.
III. Ports and shoreside infrastructure to support decarbonizing ships
While using low- to no-emissions fuels is crucial for the
decarbonization of maritime transportation, decarbonizing the maritime
industry also requires attention to ports and shore-side operations.
Low- and zero-emissions fuels are still in the development stage, and
strides have been made in electric ships, but the current U.S. and
global fleet is still powered largely by petroleum fuel oils. For
vessel owner/operators to make the transition to alternative energy and
fuels, the availability of charging and fueling infrastructure at port
facilities is critical. New business models that work for ports, their
tenants and utilities are needed to enable the capital-intensive
infrastructure to be built. In addition, as these technologies mature,
it will still take time to retrofit or rebuild the fleet so that it is
powered by low- or zero-emissions fuels.
One near-term solution is to reduce emissions at ports. There needs
to be an increase in spending for Research, Development and
Demonstration (RD&D) for maritime energy technologies and fuels. In
this regard, the EPA's Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) funding
can be expanded building new and retrofitting existing vessels, as well
as a priority set for port projects. DOE's EERE and ARPA-E should make
maritime and ports a strategic priority, and increased funding should
be used to support RD&D of novel low- and zero-carbon fuels and
technologies that can scale in production and volume to help the
maritime industry decarbonize rapidly. RD&D topics of interest include
port operations and infrastructure, vessel hull design, energy sources
and carriers (hydrogen, biofuels ammonia, batteries, marine renewable
energy, etc.), vessel operations and energy efficiency, and exhaust
treatment.
As a major contributor to carbon emissions, ports and their users
offer many largely untapped ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
throughout their operations. In addition, reducing or eliminating
carbon emissions in ports is beneficial to all stakeholders beyond the
maritime industry; local communities can reap the benefit of cleaner
air and fewer health impacts, a revitalized neighborhood surrounding
the port, and job creation as necessary infrastructure is built.
DNV's recent report, Ports: Green Gateways to Europe, outlined ten
green transitions that would significantly reduce carbon emissions at
and near ports. Three transitions stand out as solutions that would
make a significant impact in reducing carbon emissions at ports:
electrification of port-connected activities, including cold ironing
and drayage trucks; uniform regulations at the federal level specifying
carbon emission reduction standards and other related regulations; and
integrating offshore wind transmission infrastructure into ports. In
addition, integrating energy efficiency measures such as LED lighting
can bring an overall reduction of the carbon footprint of ports. Last
summer, DNV issued a series of white papers focused on North American
waterfront decarbonization opportunities including shore power, drayage
trucks and tugs.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The waterfront decarbonization white papers are available from
DNV at https://www.dnv.com/services/waterfront-decarbonization-192317.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the decarbonization of the electricity supply is a
necessary step to reaching low- or no-emissions operations for ports.
Fortunately, the current trajectory of the integration of renewables
into the grid is accelerating across the United States. DNV's Energy
Transition Outlook predicts that generation from solar PV and wind will
dominate the generation mix, reaching about 45 percent total by 2050.
With goals put forward by the Biden Administration recently, this
percentage could dramatically increase.
To balance electricity supply and demand, especially as more
renewable energy comes on-line, the grid must have system flexibility,
which can be provided by a mix of supply- and demand-side options,
including flexible conventional generation, curtailment of renewable
generation, new transmission, and more responsive loads.
Port decarbonization
DNV recommends incentivizing and funding the electrification of
port operations to the largest extent possible, particularly cold
ironing and drayage trucks. Electrification of port operations offers
multiple benefits: decarbonization of port operations and reduction in
emissions impacts for the nearshore communities, economic development
opportunities for the local community for as new infrastructure is
constructed, and new or increased revenue streams for utilities as
loads from ports grow. There are obstacles that need to be overcome,
and individual ports are hard pressed to achieve electrification
without support and involvement from federal, state, and local
governments. The single most important factor for achieving low- or
zero-carbon emissions operations via electrification is ensuring that
the electricity supply is primarily from renewable generation sources.
As mentioned above, the Administration's goal to reach a carbon
emission free electric sector by 2035 will accelerate the availability
of clean energy.
Electrifying specific areas of port operations, cold ironing when
ships are at berth and drayage trucks that move cargo, and improved
access to charging and alternative fueling for harbor craft and other
vessels would make the largest impact on decarbonizing port operations.
However, each require large investments by utilities, ports and
industry, and greater funding is required to enable larger adoption of
these practices. Each operation also has specific considerations to
make them more readily feasible for both ports and, in the case of cold
ironing and alternative energy/fuel bunkering, ship operators.
Mandating cold ironing while at berth, as is required in
California, can reduce the quantity of carbon emissions significantly--
NOx emissions can be reduced by 30 percent and particulate matter by 65
percent per call. The overall reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions depends on the local generation mix, but the average is about
36 percent. From a strictly environmental standpoint, cold ironing is
an effective way to reduce GHG in ports significantly, especially if
the local generation mix is primarily renewables. However, the capital
cost is about $2 million to $10 million per berth, and, depending on
the design of the ship and the berth, may not work in all situations.
However, innovative approaches to shore power that are currently in
development, such as mobile fuel cells powered by hydrogen, that can
adapt to a variety of ships at berth, can help to address this issue.
Additionally, the utility itself needs to be able both supply the power
that the ship needs, and to manage large and somewhat intermittent
loads as ships come and go in the port.
While ports can serve as the hosts for fueling and charging
infrastructure, utilities are critical in providing decarbonized energy
options. Utilities like Tacoma Power are leading the way in offering
special tariff structures for shore power and for electro-fuel
generation such as hydrogen. Going into effect April 1, 2021, this
first in the nation electrofuel tariff is designed for industrial
producers of electrofuels to take Tacoma Power's carbon-free
electricity and produce hydrogen or hydrogen-rich compounds that can be
used to store electricity for later use.
As described in my testimony to the House Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology on July 17, 2020, an example of utility
leadership in this space is our Joint Innovation Project for growing a
``Maritime Hydrogen Ecosystem through Formic Acid Storage Pathways.''
\2\ This is a cooperative pilot project for mobile shore power that is
being developed between the utility, ports, industry and national labs
that can demonstrate how to make, store, move and use hydrogen and
liquid hydrogen carriers (such as formic acid). These new technologies
and the system-based approach to solving the business case challenges
offer promise for scaling production of hydrogen for future maritime
uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ From Lab to Market: Accelerating Our Progress Toward Economic
Recovery and a Clean Energy Future, Hearings before the Subcommittee on
Energy of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. 116th
Cong. (2020). Testimony of Jennifer States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drayage trucks in ports are commonly fueled by diesel engines.
Electrifying this equipment can further reduce carbon emissions in
ports. Battery electric and hydrogen fuel-cell trucks can virtually
eliminate NOx and particulate matter and can decrease carbon emissions
by about 60 percent. But, as with cold ironing, capital costs, which
include drayage truck purchase and charging infrastructure, can be a
barrier.
Ports can also play a key role in enabling fueling/charging
infrastructure for low-zero emissions alternatives for vessels and
shoreside operations. This requires a coordinated planning and capital
investment approach to find new hybrid public-private funding solutions
and business models that can work across utilities, industry and ports.
The Port of Seattle is leading the way in developing their Waterfront
Clean Energy Strategy in partnership with their utility, Seattle City
Light, as well as key port stakeholders from industry and the near-
shore community. DNV is supporting the Port of Seattle by providing
expertise in energy planning, engineering and project facilitation.
Ports as a gateway to offshore wind
To ensure that electrifying port operations has the most impact,
the electricity supply must also be decarbonized. Options like
microgrids that combine on-site renewables generation from solar PV
with storage are viable and can mitigate the effects of the large loads
ships at berth may have on the grid. However, the rapid growth of
offshore wind generation on the East Coast presents an opportunity to
integrate offshore wind infrastructure into ports. Many ports are
heading in this direction now, e.g., the Port of Virginia, Bedford, MA
and others. We applaud the statement by Secretary of Transportation
Buttigieg to look favorably at ports with offshore wind infrastructure
for the Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP) now open for
funding. DNV recommends finding funding and incentives to help ports
integrate offshore wind transmission infrastructure into their current
footprints. Because ports are already industrialized areas, adding this
infrastructure enables the preservation of less-developed areas of the
shore. It also can solve the problem of access to renewable energy; by
portioning off some of the electricity generated by offshore wind via a
substation the port could readily use this energy for shore-side
operations.
Energy efficiency programs
Port operations also include those that are typical of any
commercial and industrial undertaking, with lighting, heating and
cooling for buildings, refrigerated storage, and other functions that
typically use electricity to operate. These functions also provide
opportunities to reduce carbon emissions. DNV recommends that the
federal government creates pathways for port-specific energy efficiency
programs to be implemented in cooperation with local utilities. San
Diego Gas & Electric currently offers a port-specific program that can
be used as a model. Including incentives and funding for
electrification, as well as more common efficiency measures to address
energy use from lighting and buildings can also reduce the overall
carbon footprint of ports and port operations.
https://www.mytpu.org/tacoma-power-announces-the-nations-first-
electrofuel-
tariff/-
: :text=Tacoma%20Power%20owns%20renewable%2C%20carbon,are%20from
%20carbon%2Dfree%20sources.&text=The%20electrofuel%20tariff%20was
%20approved,into%20effect%20April%201%2C%202021
Regulatory framework for uniform carbon emission standards
Given the expanse and diversity of U.S. coastal areas, it is
inevitable that each port's emissions are regulated by different
localized standards. While all ports must comply to federal Clean Air
Act standards, those that operate in states that have fewer state and
local regulations may operate at a competitive advantage. Ship owners
must also contend with different needs for different ports, e.g. cold
ironing requirements in California but not elsewhere, adding complexity
to an already complex operation. DNV recommends a uniform regulatory
framework for port greenhouse gas emissions to provide consistency
across all ports, and to accelerate port decarbonization across the
country. These regulations should address all port operations,
including harbor craft (which emit the majority of carbon in port
operations), decarbonizing electricity supply, and addressing and
mitigating emissions from drayage trucks and other related
transportation operations.
As a significant contributor to carbon emissions, the
decarbonization of ports operations is urgently required to mitigate
the maritime industry's overall contribution to GHG emissions,
especially as low- and zero-emissions fuels are far on the horizon. It
also requires that the maritime industry work with other stakeholders--
utilities, technology companies, the government, and local
communities--to ensure that is both feasible and equitable. Championing
new technologies and strategies to address global challenges like
decarbonized and flexible cold ironing can create new jobs, improve
local communities, and place the U.S. at the forefront of the energy
transition in the maritime sector.
IV. Cross-sector innovation to develop effective solutions
Decarbonizing the maritime industry requires a multifaceted
approach that includes ships (the energy end-user), ports and utilities
for the shoreside infrastructure (to deliver the energy that the ships
will use), and collaborative, cross-sector innovation to develop
effective solutions. How can we foster an environment that brings
together all these key players to accelerate clean energy innovations
for maritime emissions reductions? I have seen first-hand how a
collaborative organization coupled with government support can make all
the difference in bringing players together to work towards a common
vision and implement maritime innovation projects.
In addition to my role at DNV, I serve as Project Director for
Washington Maritime Blue. This Maritime Blue Cluster organization,
launched in 2018 by Governor Jay Inslee, has brought diverse players
together across the quadruple helix of government, industry, research,
and community organizations to: first, agree on a common vision for
values that focus on competitiveness and sustainability; And second, to
work together in an independent, collaborative organization to meet new
regulatory, economic, and innovation challenges. Getting ahead of the
curve in addressing challenges also means the companies involved can
turn challenges into a competitive advantage and growth opportunity for
our local industries.
Washington Maritime Blue is a non-profit cluster organization that
is a partnership between public entities, private industry, community
organizations and research institutions which is charged with
implementing Washington State's Strategy for the Blue Economy \3\.
Through Joint Innovation Projects (JIPs), incubator and accelerator
programs, workforce development programs, and much more they cultivate
collaboration as a key factor for the triple bottom line values of the
blue economy: economic growth, healthy ecosystems, and thriving
communities. DNV has been working with Maritime Blue since its initial
conception to foster creativity across entities and find ways to take
innovative ideas from drawing board to implementation. Maritime Blue's
JIPs are driving development of new solutions in our region and
demonstrating how we can work together to accelerate this maritime
energy transition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Washington State's Strategy for the Blue Economy, Washington
State Department of Commerce & DNV GL (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In his testimony to the Subcommittee for this hearing, Glosten
President Morgan Fanberg described the Zero Emissions Fast Foil Ferry
project being led by Washington Maritime Blue. This is a great
collaboration example that brings together the key capabilities needed
to demonstrate our leadership in zero-emission maritime transportation.
But the lack of public funding available to build and demonstrate
innovative vessels such as this puts U.S. companies at a disadvantage
over global competitors. Washington Maritime Blue and the JIP team was
fortunate to secure grant funding for advancing the design work from
the Federal Transit Administration's Accelerating Innovative Mobility
(AIM) funding opportunity. The team is also providing local public and
private match funding to leverage the Federal investments. The Foil
Ferry is the only maritime project selected for an AIM award, as the
program is structured with a focus on land-based public transit. There
was not an aligned opportunity under MARAD that could provide funding
for this project at the time. Nor is there currently public funding
available for the next step in building the demonstration vessel.
Representative Larsen mentioned during this hearing re-introducing
legislation to create a low and zero emission passenger ferry program
in the Moving Forward Act, H.R. 2, 116th Cong. (2020). Chairman
Carbajal mentioned plans to introduce legislation to double funding for
MARAD's Maritime Environmental and Technical Assistance (META) program.
DNV supports these proposals, which could serve as a conduit for
providing funding opportunities for accelerating leading maritime
transportation technologies such as the Fast Foil Ferry project.
It is also essential to bring together the ports, utilities, and
industry for planning the infrastructure needed to enable clean energy
and fueling options for zero emissions. As described above, DNV and
Washington Maritime Blue are supporting the Port of Seattle in their
Waterfront Clean Energy Strategic Plan that brings together these key
players to facilitate cross-industry planning. Clean energy planning
processes such as these can bring together the necessary stakeholders
to understand each other's value propositions and find new business
models to enable implementation.
Collaborative infrastructure planning and implementation is
critical to the energy transition. The Federal government can support
this with funding for implementing projects such as MARAD's Port
Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP). But currently, only ports
are eligible, and the infrastructure that can be funded is limited to
projects that will improve the safety, efficiency, or reliability of
the movement of goods into, out of, around, or within a port. Funding
programs such as the PIDP could be better utilized to support rapid
decarbonization of the maritime industry by requiring applicants to
indicate in their grant applications how their project contributes to
measurable emissions reduction. Or expanding the types of project to
explicitly include energy and fueling infrastructure and making
emissions reductions part of the grant selection criteria. In some
ways, the PIDP and other federal grant programs are too stove-piped to
achieve these objectives and we recommend that the GAO study how these
programs could best be used to have a cross-sector approach to reducing
GHG emissions.
In addition to Washington Maritime Blue, there are new
collaborations being launched to that will work across sectors in North
America to advance zero-emissions vessel and shoreside infrastructure
projects. The Blue Sky Maritime Coalition (the Coalition) is a non-
profit, strategic alliance formed to accelerate the transition of
waterborne transportation in the United States and Canada toward net-
zero greenhouse gas emissions. The Coalition brings together industry,
community, government, academia and other stakeholders across the
waterborne transportation value chain to action projects that remove
barriers to accelerating development, encourage innovation, and promote
policies in support of zero emissions.
These types of collaboration are key to advancing the maritime
projects for maritime energy transitions. But public funding that is
structured to support such efforts is critically needed. Organization
funding for operations is needed for these collaborations and cluster
organizations. Funding is needed for projects such as zero-emission
vessels and shoreside infrastructure. This includes funding for
planning, feasibility and demonstration phases. Funding should be
structured with multi-entity eligibility. For the new charging and
fueling infrastructure that is needed, the project could be led by
ports, utilities, industry, or non-profit consortiums. More flexibility
is needed to enable the partnerships for making the business cases
work.
Washington Maritime Blue and the Blue Sky Maritime Coalition are
leading the way in developing collaborative, cross-sector innovations
to deliver effective maritime emission reduction solutions. But
leadership is needed at the Federal level to deliver a carbon-free
maritime industry. Although Special Presidential Envoy John Kerry
recently announced that the U.S. is committing to work with countries
at the IMO to achieve zero-emissions from international shipping , this
commitment does not fully address the U.S. domestic fleet or shore-side
emissions challenges that especially impact our near-port and
disadvantaged communities.
We need a U.S. Maritime Decarbonization Strategy and goals that
create the roadmap for funding and regulatory actions. The strategy
should: identify core challenges in meeting international targets;
prioritize the challenges based on climate, national defense, economic
interests, and environmental justice needs; set national goals for
maritime emissions reduction that address these prioritized challenges;
specify how each agency can contribute to the goals; and how the
respective agencies will work with the private sector. The goals should
be jointly developed by DOE, MARAD, EPA, and the USCG, with support
from other agencies, industry and nonprofits.
V. Recommendations
In closing, DNV offers the Subcommittee the following
recommendations as practical steps towards a carbon-free maritime
industry.
1. Develop a national maritime decarbonization strategy. This
strategy should include both a National Action Plan to reduce GHG
emissions from U.S. ships in international trade (in alignment with the
IMO MEPC 75 resolution on national action plans), and a maritime
decarbonization strategy for U.S. ships in domestic service.
2. Renew the aging U.S.-flag fleet. The advanced age of the U.S.
fleet makes renewal a more cost efficient and effective decarbonization
strategy for many vessels. To support decarbonization through renewal
of the U.S.-flag fleet, we recommend increasing the existing funding to
the Federal Ship Financing Program (MARAD Title XI), with priority
given to ships that incorporate effective decarbonization strategies.
3. Prioritize research, development, demonstration, and deployment
funding for decarbonizing ships, ports, and supporting infrastructure.
a. Increase R&D spending on maritime fuels and energy
technologies. The U.S. Department of Energy's EERE and ARPA-E should
make maritime a strategic priority, in alignment with the interagency
strategy. In addition, EERE, ARPA-E and MARAD should increase funding
for maritime energy R&D to a combined total of at least $60 million
annually. This funding should be used to support R&D of novel low and
zero-carbon fuels and energy technologies that can scale in commercial
production and volume to help the maritime industry decarbonize
rapidly. R&D topics of interest include port operations and
infrastructure, vessel hull design, energy sources and carriers
(hydrogen, biofuels ammonia, batteries, marine renewable energy, etc.),
vessel operations and energy efficiency, and exhaust treatment.
b. Review and expand existing decarbonization programs. There
are several Federal grants and funding programs that are addressing air
pollution, such as the EPA's DERA program. These programs should be
expanded to specifically include maritime in their scope where
applicable. Additionally, maritime emissions reduction and
environmental justice components of these programs and grants should be
strengthened. The application process for these grants should be
reviewed to ensure that the forms are not unnecessarily onerous or
complicated and that the funds are available to all types of business,
both large and small, and equally distributed among all geographic
regions.
c. Increase incentives and funding to decarbonize port
operations. Decarbonization efforts should include electrification of
port operations to the largest extent possible, particularly the cold
ironing of ships and the electrification of drayage trucks. To ensure
that electrifying port operations has the most impact, energy
efficiency needs to be improved and the electricity supply
decarbonized. The federal government should create pathways for port-
specific energy efficiency programs to be implemented by local
utilities and provide ports incentives to integrate offshore wind
transmission infrastructure into their current footprints.
d. Make emissions reduction mandatory in grant and funding
selection criteria. There are many existing Federal programs that
provide financial support for port infrastructure, ship construction,
or maintenance and retrofits (e.g., for the PIDP, BUILD and Small
Shipyard Grants). These mechanisms should be better utilized to support
rapid decarbonization of the maritime industry by requiring applicants
to indicate in their funding applications how their project contributes
to measurable emissions reduction. Existing programs should be reviewed
and modified as necessary to include emissions reduction and
environmental justice in the selection criteria of awardees. This
increased incentive will hasten the adoption of low- or zero-emission
technologies and/or fuels.
4. Improve the framework and funding mechanisms with regional
maritime cluster organizations to implement collaborative demonstration
projects. The Federal government should support maritime cluster
organizations, incubators, accelerators, and other innovation hubs that
foster entrepreneurs and startups focused on maritime decarbonization.
Since 2015 the cumulative number of incubators, accelerators, and other
innovation hubs globally that were founded to support maritime startups
has more than tripled as of 2020. These organizations are inherently
regional in their respective scopes and work directly with the local
communities to create new businesses and jobs. Federal support could
come from the U.S. Department of Commerce and MARAD.
5. Set a uniform regulatory framework for port GHG emissions. This
framework should provide consistency across all ports and address all
aspects of port operations, including harbor craft, electricity supply,
and emissions from drayage trucks and other related transportation
operations.
In addition to the above five priority recommendations, we offer
one further suggestion: to Green the Federal Fleet. The U.S. Government
owns thousands of ships and boats which are operated by the Navy, Coast
Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, National Park Service, NOAA, and
others. The Navy alone is responsible for more than 30% of all U.S.
Government fuel consumption. The U.S. Government should lead the
maritime industry by example. Where possible these vessels should be
retrofitted to use non-fossil fuels or be used as test and
demonstration platforms for new low- and zero-carbon fuels and
technologies to help with technology de-risking. The training vessels
currently being built for the state maritime academies (National
Security Multi-Mission Vessels or NSMVs) are excellent opportunities.
Additionally, selection criteria for the acquisition of Federal vessels
should be weighted to favor vessels that reduce or eliminate the need
for fossil-fuels.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Gibbs, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to share with you DNV's
experience, insights, and recommendations for practical steps that the
U.S. Government can take to decarbonize the maritime industry. We
welcome continued dialogue with you and your staff on this most
important topic.
Appendix
----------
Question from Hon. Alan S. Lowenthal to Dan Rutherford, Ph.D., Marine
and Aviation Program Director, International Council on Clean
Transportation
Question 1. During the hearing you began to speak about the
possibility of hydrogen infrastructure in the Port of Los Angeles, Long
Beach but did not have the chance to finish. Please provide your
response and include details on how this technology is best developed
and deployed. What is necessary to effectively build up the
infrastructure needed to propel hydrogen as an alternative fuel?
Answer. Thank you for the opportunity to provide supplemental
information. Hydrogen is an energy carrier that can be produced in a
variety of ways, including by splitting water using renewable
electricity (``green hydrogen''). Subsequent processing can generate
compressed hydrogen (CH2) or liquefied hydrogen (LH2). Each has its
advantages and disadvantages as an energy carrier. Liquid hydrogen is
cooled and cryogenically stored, is more energy dense, but requires
significant energy for liquefaction and storage. Compressed hydrogen
can be stored at room temperature under high pressure but is less
energy dense and requires more storage space onboard a vessel.
When used on a ship, hydrogen generates no pollution (only water)
if used in a fuel cell and can also be burned in specialized diesel
engines. Fuel cells can be powered by either liquid or compressed
hydrogen. We envision hydrogen being first adopted by harbor craft,
tugs, and ferries as a compressed fuel, transitioning to short-range
cargo carrying ships using either compressed or liquefied hydrogen.
Fuel cells are the most likely propulsion technique, with a prototype
3.2 MW fuel cell under development today. Larger, oceangoing vessels
will require liquid hydrogen to achieve transoceanic ranges. Marine
engine manufacturers are working to commercial diesel engines capable
of burning hydrogen and ammonia, an easy-to-store hydrogen carrier that
is already commonly used as agricultural fertilizer.
In contrast to fossil fuel bunkering, which is dominated by a few
ports worldwide, hydrogen is more likely to be generated, sold, and
used in a distributed fashion given its lower energy density. That's
because, as a more difficult to store fuel, oceangoing vessels would
need to shift from a strategy of fueling once every 90 days for a
30,000 mile plus range using heavy fuel oil (HFO) towards a strategy of
refueling at each major port they visit. This creates a business
opportunity for US ports, which are responsible for 14.5% of maritime
trade by mass (UNCTAD, 2020; ITA, n.d.) but capture only 7% of bunker
fuel sales (Ship & Bunker, 2021). For container ships, Georgeff et al.
(2020) predicts that the San Pedro Bay Ports of Los Angeles and Long
Beach (PoLA and PoLB) could become the dominant Pacific Rim ports for
LH2 sales. Ports on Alaska's Aleutian Islands could also become
important refueling locations for transpacific ships powered by
renewable hydrogen.
Regarding steps to support hydrogen use in shipping, fully
developing a green LH2 bunkering infrastructure at the PoLA and PoLB
will require significant planning, infrastructure investments, and
policy support. It would include local hydrogen generation capacity,
including excess renewable wind and solar electricity and dedicated
hydrolyzers to generate hydrogen; port storage, initially in the form
of 2,500 cubic meter cryogenic spherical tanks but eventually larger
flat-bottom tanks; at-berth bunkering infrastructure to support stable
demand; and dedicated barges for ship-to-ship bunkering to meet
seasonable and/or flexible demand. See Georgeff et al. (2020) and Mao
(2020) for further details.
Expanded leadership is needed from the U.S. to support zero carbon
fuels in shipping to combat climate change, reduce air pollution
impacting vulnerable near-port communities, and to support American
jobs. A recent (March 2021) compilation of zero emission shipping
demonstration projects (Fahnestock & Bingham, 2021) highlights the need
for action. In that Global Maritime Forum report, 106 discrete
demonstration projects for hydrogen ships and fuel are highlighted,
followed in importance by projects to develop ammonia as a fuel for
larger ships. Only three projects in North American were identified.
references
Fahnestock, J., Bingham, C. (2021). Mapping of Zero Emission Pilots and
Demonstration Projects. Global Maritime Forum, Getting to Zero
Coalition. Retrieved from https://www.globalmaritimeforum.org/
content/2021/03/Mapping-of-Zero-Emission-Pilots-and-Demonstration-
Projects-Second-edition.pdf
Georgeff, E., Mao, X., Rutherford, D., and Osipova, L. (2020) Liquid
hydrogen refueling infrastructure to support a zero-emission U.S.-
China container shipping corridor. Retrieved from: https://
theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ZEV-port-infra-
hydrogren-oct2020.pdf
Mao, X. (2021). ``Could San Pedro Bay Become the First Ship Refueling
Hub for Liquid Hydrogen?'' em Plus. Air and Waste Management
Association.
Ship and Bunker. (2021). ``Bunker Volumes: Overview.'' Retrieved from
https://shipandbunker.com/bi/bunker-volumes.
United Nations Committee on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). (2020).
Review of Maritime Transport, 2019. Retrieved from https://
unctad.org/system/files/official-document/rmt2019_en.pdf.
United States International Trade Administration (ITA). (n.d.).
``Maritime Services Trade Data: U.S. International Trade in Goods
by Transport Mode and Tonnage: 2018.'' Retrieved from https://
www.trade.gov/maritime-services-trade-data
[all]