[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE PATH TO A CARBON-FREE MARITIME INDUSTRY: INVESTMENTS AND INNOVATION
=======================================================================
(116-48)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 14, 2020
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC(S) 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
42-243 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
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 DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois JOHN GARAMENDI, California
ROB WOODALL, Georgia HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
JOHN KATKO, New York Georgia
BRIAN BABIN, Texas ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana DINA TITUS, Nevada
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
MIKE BOST, Illinois JARED HUFFMAN, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas JULIA BROWNLEY, California
DOUG LaMALFA, California FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan MARK DeSAULNIER, California
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California,
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania Vice Chair
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
Puerto Rico ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
ROSS SPANO, Florida GREG STANTON, Arizona
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
GREG PENCE, Indiana COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa
JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
HARLEY ROUDA, California
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
------
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York,
Chair
BOB GIBBS, Ohio RICK LARSEN, Washington
DON YOUNG, Alaska STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas JOHN GARAMENDI, California
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire, Vice
SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio) Chair
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ v
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Hon. Sean Patrick Maloney, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Coast Guard
and Maritime Transportation:
Opening statement............................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Hon. Bob Gibbs, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Ohio, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation:
Opening statement............................................ 3
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, and Chairman, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, prepared statement............................. 63
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, prepared statement............................. 64
WITNESSES
Joshua Berger, Governor's Maritime Sector Lead, Washington State
Department of Commerce:
Oral statement............................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
John W. Butler, President and Chief Executive Officer, World
Shipping Council:
Oral statement............................................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 12
B. Lee Kindberg, Ph.D., Head of Environment and Sustainability-
North America, Maersk:
Oral statement............................................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Peter Bryn, Technical Solutions Manager-North America, ABB Marine
and Ports:
Oral statement............................................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Kathy Metcalf, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chamber of
Shipping of America:
Oral statement............................................... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 34
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Submissions for the Record by Hon. Sean Patrick Maloney:
Letter of January 14, 2020, from David Bolduc, Executive
Director, Green Marine..................................... 64
Letter of January 14, 2020, from Daniel Hubbell, Shipping
Emissions Campaign Manager, Ocean Conservancy.............. 66
Letter of January 13, 2020, from Bruce Appelgate, Associate
Director, Scripps Institution of Oceanography.............. 69
Letter of January 14, 2020, from Jesse N. Marquez, Executive
Director, Coalition For A Safe Environment................. 70
APPENDIX
Questions to Joshua Berger, Governor's Maritime Sector Lead,
Washington State Department of Commerce, from:
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................ 77
Hon. Anthony G. Brown........................................ 80
Questions to John W. Butler, President and Chief Executive
Officer, World Shipping Council, from:
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................ 81
Hon. Anthony G. Brown........................................ 84
Questions to B. Lee Kindberg, Ph.D., Head of Environment and
Sustainability-North America, Maersk, from:
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................ 84
Hon. Anthony G. Brown........................................ 85
Hon. Carol D. Miller......................................... 86
Questions to Peter Bryn, Technical Solutions Manager-North
America, ABB Marine and Ports, from:
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................ 86
Hon. Anthony G. Brown........................................ 87
Foreword to Responses from Kathy Metcalf, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Chamber of Shipping of America.............. 88
Questions to Kathy Metcalf from:
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................ 89
Hon. Anthony G. Brown........................................ 91
Hon. Carol D. Miller......................................... 92
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
January 10, 2020
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 ``The Path to a Carbon-Free Maritime
Industry: Investments and Innovation''
_______________________________________________________________________
PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
will meet on Tuesday, January 14, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. in 2167
Rayburn House Office Building to survey new developments in
sustainable shipping technologies and international emissions
standards established to decarbonize the maritime industry. The
Subcommittee will hear from Maersk Line, the Washington State
Department of Commerce, ABB Marine and Ports, Chamber of
Shipping of America, and the World Shipping Council about
innovations in zero-emission vessel (ZEV) design, research and
infrastructure needs, and strategic opportunities for American
maritime commerce.
BACKGROUND
EMISSIONS AND THE MARITIME INDUSTRY
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has set the
stage for a massive decarbonization of the shipping industry.
On its own, today's international shipping industry accounts
for over 1 billion tons of emissions per year, 3 percent of
total global of sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxide (NOx),
particulate matter (PM), and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.\1\
If international shipping were a country, it would rank as the
6th largest polluting actor on the planet; shipping emissions
contributed to 1,200 early deaths in the United States last
year alone.\2\ SOx are known to be harmful to human health,
causing respiratory symptoms and cardiovascular and lung
disease, with concentrated impacts in communities adjacent to
ports.\3\ In the atmosphere, SOx can exacerbate radiative
forcing and global climate change, leading to acid rain,
harming crops, forests and aquatic species, and contributing to
the acidification of the oceans.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Olmer et al., Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Global Shipping,
2013-2015, The International Council On Clean Transportation, 2017;
Heitmann N, Khalilian S, Accounting for carbon dioxide emissions from
international shipping. Burden sharing under different UNFCCC
allocation options and regime scenarios. Mar Policy 35:682-69, 2011.
\2\ Schlanger, Zoe, If shipping were a country, it would be the
world's sixth-biggest greenhouse gas emitter, World Economic Forum,
2018; Anenberg et al., A Global Snapshot of the Air Pollution-Related
Health Impacts of Transportation Sector Emissions in 2010 and 2015, The
International Council On Clean Transportation, 2019.
\3\ Bhandarkar, S., Vehicular Pollution, Their Effect on Human
Health and Mitigation Measures, Vehicle Engineering, Vol. 1 Issue 2,
June 2013; Jiang et al., Air pollution and chronic airway diseases:
what should people know and do?, Journal of Thoracic Disease Vol. 8
Issue 1: E31-E40, January 2016; Bailey et al., Pollution prevention at
ports: clearing the air, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol.
24, Issues 7-8, October-November 2004, Pages 749-77.
\4\ Perhac, R.M. (1992) Acid Rain Encyclopedia of Physical Science
and Technology. Vol. 1. Academic Press, London; Peterson, M., The
effects of air pollution and acid rain on fish, wildlife, and their
habitats, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Office of Biological Services, 80/40.3, 1982; Prinn et al., Effects of
air pollution control on climate: results from an integrated global
systems model, from Human Induced Climate Change: an Interdisciplinary
Assessment, Cambridge University Press, UK, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IMO has established increasingly stringent greenhouse
gas emissions reductions 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
after.\5\ The IMO Energy Efficiency Design Index requires all
newly built ships built from 2013 onwards to meet mandatory
reduction targets, increasing in stringency every five years up
until 2030, which is currently incompatible with a continued
long-term use of fossil fuels by commercial shipping.\6\ While
demand for seaborne trade is projected to grow by 39 percent
through 2050, and energy-efficiency measures, hull and
machinery improvements, and speed reduction are readily
available to reduce vessel emissions, carbon-neutral fuels will
need to grow 30-40 percent to meet world fleet energy needs by
2050, in addition to improving energy efficiency, to achieve
IMO greenhouse gas ambitions.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ International Maritime Organization, IMO Action to Reduce
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from International Shipping, IMO 2019.
\6\ Nishatabbas et al., The implementation of technical energy
efficiency and CO2 emission reduction measures in shipping, Ocean
Engineering, Vol. 139, 2017: 184-197; DNV GL, Maritime Forecast to 2050
Energy Transition Outlook 2019.
\7\ DNV GL, Maritime Forecast to 2050 Energy Transition Outlook
2019, page 15.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 1_Available methods to reduce vessel emissions by percentage of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
global emissions mitigated. DNV GL 2019.
To accommodate the IMO emission caps, fossil fuel-based
marine fuels (such as Heavy Fuel Oil, Low Sulphur Heavy Fuel
Oil, Marine Diesel Oil and Liquefied Natural Gas) will need to
comprise a small share of the total fuel mix in 2050.\8\
Additionally, by 2025, the IMO will require all new ships be 30
percent more energy efficient than those built in 2014.\9\ The
international fleet has made substantial improvements in 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Ibid.
\9\ Chestney. N. IMO agrees on stricter efficiency targets for some
ships, Reuters, May 2019, Accessed January 9 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ships are highly capital-intensive assets with typical
operating lives of 20 to 30 years. With the ratification of new
emissions standards by the IMO, therefore, shipping companies
must consider zero-carbon fuels and associated technologies now
in order to meet established deadlines. Vessels coming online
after 2030 will need to ZEVs or very low emission vessels in
order to assure they can operate for their full expected
commercial life, which would extend to the period after 2025 in
which fleetwide emissions would be drastically reduced.
FEDERAL PARTICIPATION AT THE IMO
The United States' Maritime Administration's (MARAD) Office
of Environment and Compliance has played an important role in
international maritime environmental policy development for
several years, serving as a member and active participant of
the US delegation for the IMO and, more recently, as a
technical chair and working group members in the International
Standards Organization. In this role, MARAD collaborates with
the international maritime industry to establish ship and
marine technology standards that can improve environmental
impacts.
MARAD works with the US Coast Guard, Environmental
Protection Agency, the US Navy, and the State Department in
preparing proposed regulations related to emission reductions
through performance-based standards. Pollutants of concern
under Annex VI include nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and
particulates from marine vessels.\10\ In October 2008, Annex VI
was amended to allow for development of Emission Control Areas
(ECAs) by 2015.\11\ The ECA system, which establishes tighter
regional emission standards for engine emissions and fuel
quality in most coastal waters up to 200 nautical miles from
the coasts of the continental United States and large portions
around Alaska and Hawaii, has been found to be a cost-
effective, reliable means of reducing air pollution and
improving public health.\12\ The North American ECA has been in
effect since 2015, restricting emissions within the designated
control area to 0.10 percent sulfur content.\13\ Starting
January 2020, the IMO expanded the 0.5 percent limit for sulfur
content to ships operating outside designated ECAs.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ International Maritime Organization, Prevention of Air
Pollution from Ships, online, see (Reg. 4, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 18),
Accessed Jan 9 2020.
\11\ Ibid.
\12\ Environmental Protection Agency, Proposal to Designate an
Emission Control Area for Nitrogen Oxides, Sulfur Oxides and
Particulate Matter Technical Support Document, Assessment and Standards
Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA-420-R-09-007,
April 2009.
\13\ International Maritime Organization, North American emission
control area comes into effect on 1 August 2012, online, Accessed Jan 9
2020.
\14\ Ibid.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 2_Alternative fuel are variably accessibility and ready for
deployment, many still lacking the necessary infrastructure and
availability to be considered viable by operators. Fuel sources
(identified by color on the key to the right), are ranked by technology
maturity along a scale from low maturity (red) to high maturity
(green). Source: DNV GL 2019.
ALTERNATIVE FUEL TECHNOLOGIES
Existing technologies and fuels deployed to meet the US ECA
and early IMO emissions caps include scrubbers, a mechanical
treatment of high sulfur fuels to remove sulfur from the
exhaust of the vessel, and low sulfur fuels like 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. 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 short-sea shipping operators.
For most alternative fuels and power sources, technical
applicability and commercial viability will vary greatly for
different ship types and trades. Deep-sea shipping comprises
large ocean-going ships, and a large proportion of their energy
consumption relates to propulsion of the ship at steady speed
over long distances. These vessels are today driven by two-
stroke combustion engines, which are highly efficient for
propulsion and maximize the space available for cargo through
the use of energy-dense fuel. Short-sea vessels, travelling
shorter distances and with variable power demands 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 short-sea fleet
increases flexibility for using energy from batteries, fuel
cells and waste heat as well as renewable sources (e.g. solar,
wind, waves) available onshore.
The primary energy sources considered to produce existing
alternative fuels like hydrogen, ammonia, methanol, gas oil and
electricity include: natural gas with capture and storage for
hydrogen and ammonia, biomass and algae for methanol and gas,
and renewable electricity for hydrogen and batteries.
Hybridization and electrification can deliver emission savings
regardless of the type of fuel used to generate electricity. To
develop, prove, scale and commercialize ZEVs, 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's Water Office, MARAD's Marine
Environmental Technical Assistance office, and U.S. Coast Guard
have initiated conversations about the availability and
viability of new fuels for use in the maritime industry.
ALTERNATIVE VESSEL DESIGNS
Cargo ships, like cars, vary widely in performance and
design. In addition to retrofitting existing ships, compliant
vessels can be efficiently designed and built to meet the new
emissions standards.\15\ 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
design options for shipowners. Rotor sails, for example, can
reduce a ship's fuel use by 5-20 percent.\16\ 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 ship designs; some projects have
operational wind-assisted vessels on the water today.\17\ For
existing vessels, third-party operators can assess vessel
efficiency based on each ship's design specifications and
engine type, helping shipping companies lower their bunker fuel
bills and to reduce emissions associated with moving goods
around the world.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Environmental Protection Agency, Proposal to Designate an
Emission Control Area for Nitrogen Oxides, Sulfur Oxides and
Particulate Matter Technical Support Document, Assessment and Standards
Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA-420-R-09-007,
April 2009.
\16\ Kornei, K., Spinning metal sails could slash fuel consumption,
emissions on cargo ships, Science, September 2017.
\17\ Gallucci, M, Dreamboats, Grist, October 21, 2019. Accessed
January 5th 2020.
\18\ Gallucci, M., Shipping industry takes a page from bitcoin to
clean up its act, Grist, Feb 21, 2019. Accessed January 5th 2020.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Example: Zero Emission Research Vessel_Sandia National Laboratories
partnered with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, the naval
architect firm Glosten and the class society DNV GL to assess the
technical, regulatory and economic feasibility of a hydrogen fuel-cell
coastal research vessel. Feasibility was found for a 10-knot vessel
with 2400 nautical mile range, able to perform 14 Scripps science
missions, refueled with liquid hydrogen at 4 different ports of call
along the U.S. west coast. No ``show-stopping'' issues were identified
by either DNV GL or the United States Coast Guard. This work was funded
by the Maritime Administration (MARAD) within the U.S. Department of
Transportation. Source: Sandia National Laboratories.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Example: Full Port Electrification at the Georgia Ports Authority_Port
of Savannah is piloting four electric rubber-tired gantry cranes, which
use 95 percent less fuel than their diesel-powered counterparts by only
using diesel when moving between container rows. GPA also replaced its
27 diesel ship-to-shore cranes with electrified cranes that recharge
themselves as they lower containers, producing enough energy to power
themselves for 18 minutes of each operating hour. These newly adopted
technologies provide solution for both GPA and surrounding communities:
GPA saves money, since electric cranes cost 85 percent less to operate,
and communities benefit from reduced pollution. Source: Georgia Ports
Authority.
SHORE POWER AND ELECTRIFICATION
Cold ironing, also known shore-to-ship power or alternative
marine power, is the process of providing shoreside electrical
power to a ship at berth while its main and auxiliary engines
are turned off. With this process, emergency equipment,
refrigeration, cooling, heating, lighting, and other equipment
are still able to receive continuous electrical power, while
the ship loads or unloads its cargo. Cold ironing requires
semi-standardized electrical port and vessel infrastructure,
conduits and safety systems to ensure personnel safety and
continuous power transfer, and sufficient electrical capacity
at the port.
Electrification of port infrastructure and at-berth vessels
has been demonstrated to significantly reduce per vessel
emission reductions for NOx, particulate matter and CO2
emissions, including reductions in noise pollution.\19\
Establishing emission control requirements for ports and
terminals have been implemented at the state and local level in
California to mitigate localized emissions impacts and reduce
long-term operating costs.\20\ Because cold ironing requires
upgrades to ships and shore-side port infrastructure, shore
power is most feasible for frequently calling ships, and may be
cost-prohibitive for infrequent callers; industry analysts cite
a lack of national legislation, tax exemptions on shoreside
electricity, and a reduced price differential between bunker
fuel and electricity costs as barriers to global
implementation.\21\ Marine fuels are currently globally tax
exempt, providing an additional incentive to use diesel fuels
for shore power.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Office of Transportation Air Quality, National Port Strategy
Assessment: Reducing Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gases at U.S. Ports,
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-420-R-16-011, September 2016.
Local governments in California have had success with reducing
localized vessel emissions through At-Berth regulations in 2007 and
2009. Recent regulation requires a fleet operator to reduce at-berth
oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions from its
vessels' auxiliary engines in port by at least 80 percent by 2020.
\20\ JD Supra, CARB Continues Roll-Out to Reduce Emissions from
Vessels in California Ports and Targets Ride-Hailing Vehicle Greenhouse
Gas Emissions; Update on AB 617, California Air and Climate Vol. 11,
November 2019; Office of Transportation Air Quality, National Port
Strategy Assessment: Reducing Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gases at
U.S. Ports, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-420-R-16-011,
September 2016.
\21\ Sukharenko, D., Shore power lacks global investment, tax
exemptions, Journal of Commerce online, accessed December 20th 2019.
\22\ Hiene, D. and Gade, S., Unilaterally removing implicit
subsidies for maritime Fuels: A mechanism to unilaterally tax maritime
emissions while satisfying extraterritoriality, tax competition and
political constraints. Int Econ Econ Policy (2018) 15:523-545.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Example: Maritime Hydrogen Fuel Cell Project_The Maritime Hydrogen Fuel
Cell (MarFC) project is testing the feasibility of hydrogen-fuel-cell-
powered generators as an alternative to diesel generators to provide
clean power in port operations. Co-funded by the U.S. Department of
Energy's Fuel Cell Technologies Office and the U.S. Department of
Transportation's Maritime Administration, MarFC completed a six-month
deployment at the Port of Honolulu. Other Barge-Mounted Hydrogen Fuel
Cell for Vessel Cold-Ironing were found to be able to power container
ships at berth at the Port of Tacoma and/or Seattle, powering tugs at
anchorage near the Port of Oakland, and powering refrigerated
containers on-board Hawaiian inter-island transport barges. Port of
Seattle, the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet, the California Maritime Academy,
and an excursion vessel on the Ohio River have other demonstration
projects. Source: Sandia National Laboratories.
CHALLENGES FOR THE MARITIME INDUSTRY:
1. LAvailability: New technologies and fuels require
sufficient supply chains and safety infrastructure in whatever
ports they intend to visit in the United States or abroad for
each category of alternative fuel. LNG, for example, is
available globally and in large volumes, but limited bunkering
infrastructure has directed LNG-fueled vessels to ports that
can ensure access to that fuel.
2. LSafety: The new properties and qualities of alternative
low emissions fuels may pose different safety challenges for
vessel and port operators and which may result in changes to
regulatory and enforcement capacity in the Environmental
Protection Agency and the U.S. Coast Guard. For example, the
significantly higher buoyancy of hydrogen compared to natural
gas means that hazardous zones defined in current maritime
safety codes for natural gas may be inaccurate if applied to
hydrogen. Operators, regulators, and crew will need to adjust
to vessel operations to safely accommodate new fuel sources.
3. LEnforcement: Limited compliance and enforcement of the
2020 sulfur cap, emission reduction measures, and at-berth
emissions regulations will undermine the efficacy of these
programs. For example, from 2014-2016, one liner did not meet
operational time limits for diesel use for at least half of its
visits to the Port of Los Angeles Long Beach.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ California Air Resources Board, California Air Resources Board
settles with COSCO Container Lines Co., Ltd., for $965,000, California
Air Resource Board, December 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. LLimitations of Electrification: The potential for
electricity in the maritime sector is currently limited to
short-sea and in-port operations. Maersk is testing battery
power at sea to utilize excess energy generated at off-peak
hours to operate large container vessels.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Maersk Intl., Maersk to pilot a battery system to improve
power production, Press Release, November 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. LResearch and Development: Eight global shipping
associations have submitted a plan to the IMO for a fuel tax
dedicated to helping eliminate CO2 emissions from international
shipping.\25\ The tax would generate funds of about $5 billion
over a 10-year period, which the association deems necessary to
achieve the IMO's 2050 emission reduction targets.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Those associations include BIMCO, Cruise Lines International
Association, Intercargo, Interferry, International Chamber of Shipping,
Intertanko, International Parcel Tankers' Association and the World
Shipping Council. The Maritime Executive, Fuel Tax Proposed to Fund $5
Billion R&D Plan, December 18 2019, Accessed Jan 9 2020.
\26\ The Maritime Executive, Fuel Tax Proposed to Fund $5 Billion
R&D Plan, January 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITNESS LIST
LMr. Joshua Berger, Governor's Maritime Sector
Lead, State of Washington
LMr. John Butler, President and Chief Executive
Officer, World Shipping Council
LMs. Lee Kindberg, Director, Environment &
Sustainability, Maersk Line/Maersk Agency USA
LMr. Peter Bryn, Technical Solutions Manager,
North America, ABB Marine & Ports
LMs. Kathy Metcalf, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Chamber of Shipping of America
THE PATH TO A CARBON-FREE MARITIME INDUSTRY: INVESTMENTS AND INNOVATION
----------
TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2020
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m. in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sean Patrick
Maloney (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Maloney. The subcommittee will come to order.
I ask unanimous consent that the chair be authorized to
declare recess during today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
Good morning. Welcome to today's hearing on innovations and
new developments as we build towards a sustainable carbon-free
maritime transportation future.
If international shipping were its own country, it would
rank as the sixth largest polluter on the planet. The
conventional heavy fuels used to move massive oceangoing
vessels are laden with sulfur oxides, diesel particulate
matter, and carbon dioxide. That is not pleasant stuff, and it
can lead to acid rain, harm crops, acidify oceans, and, not
incidentally, impact human health.
For example, shipping emissions contributed to 1,200 early
deaths in the United States last year alone, disproportionately
impacting low-income communities of color who live adjacent to
ports and maritime terminals. That should not be acceptable.
Recognizing these impacts, the International Maritime
Organization, or IMO, has committed to reduce total annual
greenhouse emissions from international shipping by at least 50
percent by the year 2050 from 2008 emissions levels.
Additionally, just 2 weeks ago, the IMO's high seas
maritime fuel sulfur emissions cap was reduced from 3.5 percent
to .5 percent to protect air quality and human health.
Shipowners, operators, refineries, and regulators like the
Coast Guard have adapted to meet this new cap by burning
cleaner, high-quality, low-sulfur fuels, or by installing
scrubbing technologies.
The maritime industry has not taken on these restrictions
merely for a challenge; they recognize, rather, that
decarbonizing our global economy is a necessity and an
opportunity. We are borrowing time from the next generation.
The time for change is now. And I commend the maritime industry
taking these initiatives.
Charting its own path to decarbonize the maritime industry,
the IMO requires operators to reduce carbon intensity by
vessel, by unit of work, and across the industry, as a whole.
This will require investments in vessel efficiency, alternative
fuels, alternative designs, clean shore power, and more.
For ships to serve their planned lifetime and to meet the
2050 emissions reduction goal, vessels coming online after 2030
will need to be either zero-emission vessels or very low-
emission vessels to assure that they can operate for their
expected commercial life. We should ensure we have the
capability to design, build, and operate those vessels here in
the United States.
Investing in innovative new technologies and clean maritime
commerce is just one more opportunity we have to bring the
American maritime industry into the 21st century, and one we
cannot afford to miss. Indeed, the maritime community has risen
to meet the challenge, although I must stress the U.S. can and
should do much, much more.
Today we hear from carriers, engineers, and industrial
designers about the steps they have taken to reduce emissions,
the challenges they faced along the way, and what comes next
along the path to a carbon-free but no less efficient, global
maritime supply chain.
[Mr. Maloney's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sean Patrick Maloney, a Representative in
Congress from the State of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing on innovations and new
developments as we build towards a sustainable, carbon-free maritime
transportation future.
If international shipping were its own country, it would rank as
the 6th largest polluter on the planet. The conventional heavy fuels
used to move massive ocean-going vessels are laden with sulfur oxides,
diesel particulate matter, and carbon dioxide, nasty stuff that can
lead to acid rain, harm crops, acidify oceans, and not incidentally,
also impact human health.
For example, shipping emissions contributed to 1,200 early deaths
in the United States last year alone, disproportionately impacting low
income communities of color who live adjacent to ports and marine
terminals. This is unacceptable.
Recognizing these impacts, the International Maritime Organization,
or ``IMO'', has committed to reduce total annual greenhouse emissions
from international shipping by at least 50 percent by the year 2050
from 2008 emissions levels.
Additionally, just two weeks ago, the IMO's high seas maritime fuel
sulfur emissions cap was reduced from 3.50 percent to 0.50 percent to
protect air quality and human health. Ship owners, operators,
refineries, and regulators like the Coast Guard have adapted to meet
this new cap by burning cleaner, higher quality low sulfur fuels or by
installing scrubbing technologies.
The maritime industry has not taken on these restrictions merely
for a challenge: they recognize, rather, that decarbonizing our global
economy is a necessity and an opportunity. We are borrowing time from
the next generation. The time for change is now, and I commend the
maritime industry taking the initiative.
Charting its own path to decarbonize the maritime industry, the IMO
requires operators to reduce carbon intensity by vessel, by unit of
work, and across the industry as a whole. This will require investments
in vessel efficiency, alternative fuels, alternative designs, clean
shore power, and more.
For ships to serve their planned lifetime and to meet the 2050
emissions reduction goal, vessels coming online after 2030 will need to
be either zero emission vessel or very low emission vessels to assure
they can operate for their expected commercial life. We should ensure
we have the capability to design, build, and operate those vessels in
the United States.
Investing in innovative new technologies and clean maritime
commerce is just one more opportunity to bring the American maritime
industry into the 21st century, and one we can't afford to miss.
Indeed, the maritime community has risen to meet the challenge,
although I must stress, the U.S. can and should do much, much more.
Today we will hear from carriers, engineers, and industrial designers
about the steps they've taken to reduce emissions, the challenges
they've faced along the way, and what comes next along the path to a
carbon-free, but no less efficient, global maritime supply chain.
Mr. Maloney. I ask unanimous consent to insert statements
from Green Marine, the Ocean Conservancy, Scripps Institution
of Oceanography, and the Coalition for a Safe Environment into
the hearing record.
Without objection.
[The information is on pages 64-76.]
Mr. Maloney. I would now like to call on the ranking
member, Mr. Gibbs, for any opening remarks.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Chairman Maloney, and thank you to
the witnesses here today. The International Maritime
Organization administers the Convention on the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships, and sets targets for the reduction of
sulfur emissions, which went into effect the beginning of this
month.
I look forward to hearing what industry is doing to reach
these targets, which took effect earlier in the North American
and European emission control areas.
IMO also set targets for significant further reductions in
vessel air emissions in 2030--40 percent below the 2008; and
2050--70 percent below 2008 levels.
I am also interested in whether the witnesses believe these
targets can be met and, if so, what would the cost be.
IMO also sets international standards for various other
discharges from vessels, including oil; garbage, including
plastic; wastewater, and ballast water.
Efforts are also underway to require that ships be quieter.
I support market-driven solutions to great investment and
innovation of new technologies, which will create a more
efficient maritime transportation system. Government mandates
will only hinder ongoing private-sector efforts to innovate and
improve environmental sustainability. I think we need to look
at the impacts of all these regulations on the shipping
industry, and look to witnesses' comments on the collective
impact of these various environmental regulations, and the cost
and efficiency of ocean shipping.
[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
International shipping contributes 3 percent of total global
emission of sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxide, particulate matter and
carbon dioxide emissions. The International Maritime Organization which
administers the Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
set targets for the reduction of sulfur emissions which went into
effect at the beginning of this month. I look forward to hearing what
industry is doing to reach these targets which took effect earlier in
the North American and European emission control areas.
IMO also set targets for significant further reductions in vessel
air emissions in 2030 (40 percent below 2008) and 2050 (70 percent
below 2008 levels). I am interested in whether the witnesses believe
these targets can be met, and if so, at what cost.
IMO also sets international standards for various other discharges
from vessels, including oil, garbage (including plastic), wastewater,
and ballast water. Efforts are also underway to require that ships be
quieter. I think we need to look at the impacts of all these
regulations on the shipping industry, and I look to witnesses' comments
on the collective impact of these various environmental regulations on
the cost and efficiency of ocean shipping.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Chairman, for holding this hearing
today, and I yield back.
Mr. Maloney. I thank the gentleman.
I would now like to welcome the witnesses on our panel: Mr.
Joshua Berger, Governor's maritime sector lead for the State of
Washington; Mr. John W. Butler, president and chief executive
officer of the World Shipping Council; Dr. B. Lee Kindberg,
director of environment and sustainability for Maersk/Maersk
Agency USA; Mr. Peter Bryn, technical solutions manager, North
America, for ABB Marine and Ports; and Ms. Kathy Metcalf,
president and chief executive officer for the Chamber of
Shipping of America.
Thank you for being here today. We look forward to your
testimony.
Without objection, our witnesses' full statements will be
included in the record.
Since your written testimony has been made part of the
record, the subcommittee requests that you limit your oral
testimony to 5 minutes.
Mr. Berger, you may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF JOSHUA BERGER, GOVERNOR'S MARITIME SECTOR LEAD,
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; JOHN W. BUTLER,
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, WORLD SHIPPING COUNCIL;
B. LEE KINDBERG, Ph.D., HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY-
NORTH AMERICA, MAERSK; PETER BRYN, TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS MANAGER-
NORTH AMERICA, ABB MARINE AND PORTS; AND KATHY METCALF,
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CHAMBER OF SHIPPING OF
AMERICA
Mr. Berger. Thank you, Chairman Maloney, Ranking Member
Gibbs, and members of the committee, for the opportunity to
testify today. I proudly work as Governor Jay Inslee's maritime
sector lead, and serve as board chair and founder of Washington
Maritime Blue, a strategic alliance.
Mr. Maloney. Yes, Mr. Berger, you will find that you can
bring the box that the microphone is built into towards you.
That will move. There you go. And if you can speak into it, it
will help the Members a great deal. Thank you, sir. Sorry for
the interruption.
Mr. Berger. Can I start from the beginning for you?
Mr. Maloney. If you want, but if you could just bring that
microphone right towards you, sir, it will move, as well.
Mr. Berger. Perfect.
Mr. Maloney. There you go.
Mr. Berger. Thank you. So I serve as Governor Jay Inslee's
maritime sector lead, and board chair of Washington Maritime
Blue. It is a strategic alliance for multisector stakeholders
charged to implement Washington State's strategy for the blue
economy. It is a plan to accelerate innovation, investment, and
sustainability in the maritime and ocean sectors.
I have submitted written testimony that outlines the
details of our State's plan and our implementation strategy.
And today I am here to share how coordination and
multistakeholder partnerships have contributed to our success
and national leadership, and I ask that Congress consider what
role you can play to support both the necessary R&D plus the
ecosystems for innovation it will take to achieve national and
global targets.
The OECD predicts that the maritime and ocean economy will
double to $3 trillion by 2030. Other nations in Europe and Asia
are investing billions in zero-emission maritime solutions and
ecosystems of innovation in a coordinated and organized
approach. Not only are they drastically reducing emissions and
increasing safety, but they are helping to save billions in
operational costs. They are creating new markets, and driving
capital investments and jobs into communities.
In the State of Washington we have decided that this is the
course we want to set to do the right thing and stay
economically competitive in a global stage. With great
commitment from our industry leaders, we are building on our
State's diverse and interdependent maritime sector, and
leveraging the expertise of our research institutions, tech
industry, advanced manufacturing, and ocean engineering to
drive investment.
Add to this a long history of commitment to environmental
performance, quality craftsmanship, and best management
practices, and couple that with a culture of innovation,
investment, and collaboration, and we will create a global hub
for solutions and economic growth.
As we were wrapping up our strategy last year, it became
clear that we needed mechanisms in place to begin implementing
on day one. We investigated other world-class maritime regions.
What we consistently found was an organized approach to bring
together what we call the quadruple helix of innovation
clusters: Government, industry, research institutions, and, in
our case, workforce and community-based organizations, all
partnering together.
The day we released the strategy, we launched Washington
Maritime Blue in exactly that vein. In its first year we have
grown to over 75 members from multiple sectors, all invested in
Washington's maritime and ocean economy. Often, direct
competitors are in the room collaborating to grow collective
markets through standardization and technology transfer. They
are working together.
Over the last year we have completed a capital landscape
study for investments, we are supporting the electrification of
the Washington State ferry system through supplier engagement,
we have funded an innovation center, and are kicking off a
maritime blue innovation accelerator with 11 companies. We are
conducting a feasibility study and a triple bottom line
decisionmaking tool for a zero-emission pilot boat, and
facilitating at least two other joint innovation projects to
develop zero-emission vessels.
But despite this incredible leadership our industry
stakeholders have taken, they cannot do it alone. If we were to
be successful, it will need to take an organized approach and
the right strategic investments by Congress to support the
millions of existing jobs in the maritime sector, and create
the next generation of workforce to make that a reality.
We are encouraged by the collaborative approach of some key
leaders in the Department of Commerce, Department of Energy,
NOAA, the Navy, Coast Guard, and MARAD, and we will continue to
work closely with our partners there. However, to maintain
momentum and stay competitive, we need Congress to support a
national network of maritime and ocean innovation clusters. We
cannot foster and enable these ecosystems of innovation in
isolation. State and local leaders need assistance and
resources to support local companies to collaborate and stoke
the interest of entrepreneurs and investors to take advantage
of that $3 trillion opportunity.
You have access to our complete State strategy, and I
encourage you to read it through. It works to advance our goals
as an industry. Together we can take advantage of models that
are working, continue to gather our resources, and get to work.
Thank you, and I look forward to answering any questions
you may have.
[Mr. Berger's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joshua Berger, Governor's Maritime Sector Lead,
Washington State Department of Commerce
Thank you, Chairman Maloney, Ranking Member Gibbs, and members of
the committee, for the opportunity to testify on the path to a carbon-
free maritime industry and the investments and innovation needed to
achieve this goal. I proudly work as Governor Jay Inslee's Maritime
Sector Lead and Director of Maritime Economic Development at the
Washington state Department of Commerce. Over the course of the last
three years I have been charged by the Governor and his Maritime
Innovation Advisory Council to both deliver and implement Washington
state's Strategy for the Blue Economy \1\--a plan to accelerate
innovation and sustainability in the maritime and ocean sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Washington state's Strategy for the Blue Economy (2019) WA
State Dept. of Commerce & DNV GL--www.maritimeblue.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For context, my role as sector lead is to be a liaison to the
Governor, Legislature, and state agencies from our key economic
sectors. I have worked in the maritime industry for over 25 years as a
professional merchant mariner, maritime workforce educator and marine
construction project manager--as well as an advocate for ocean
literacy, marine conservation, and clean technology.
Today, I'm here to share our state's work to accelerate innovation
and our investment to decarbonize the maritime sector. And to be clear,
when I say ``our state'' I mean each of the stakeholders that impact,
and are impacted by, the maritime and ocean economy across the state of
Washington. This includes not only our government agencies, but
employers, technology providers, universities, workforce training
institutions, national laboratories, labor organizations, tribes, and
community and environmental organizations, among the many. This level
of coordination and multi-stakeholder partnership has contributed
greatly to our success and national leadership as a center of
excellence for maritime innovation and investment--specifically in
vessel electrification and the path towards a carbon-free maritime
industry.
We're doing this work because it's the right thing to do, and
because it's how we stay economically competitive on a global stage.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
predicts the maritime and ocean economy will double to $3 trillion by
2030--four times the current space economy. Other nations in Europe and
Asia are investing billions in zero-emission maritime solutions. Other
nations are supporting clusters or, ecosystems of innovation, in a
coordinated and organized approach. The international maritime
community is focused on tackling the climate crisis using the structure
of the UN's Sustainable Development Goals as a guidepost. The
International Maritime Organization (IMO) that regulates the global
maritime industry is dramatically increasing regulatory pressure. As
other nations invest in solutions to the climate crisis, not only are
they drastically reducing emissions and increasing safety--they are
saving billions in operational costs, creating new markets, and driving
capital investment and jobs into their communities through design,
manufacturing, and technology development.
In the state of Washington, we have decided this is the course we
want to set. We have decided that our state can leverage the expertise
of our research institutions, tech industry, advanced manufacturing,
and ocean engineering to drive investment. We have created a clear,
multi-stakeholder strategy and are implementing its goals through the
creation of a formal, independent organization and strategic alliance
for maritime innovation and sustainability.
We offer our story as a model of how the federal government and
other states can continue to support the maritime industry and
stakeholders to meet global challenges, succeed in an increasing
regulatory climate, and create equitable and resilient communities.
Washington state is already home to a diverse and interdependent
maritime industry that generates $37 billion into our state's economy,
directly employing 70,000 family-wage jobs and impacting another
120,000. One in every four jobs in the state are tied to international
trade, and we have the fourth largest container gateway in the United
States. Washington state operates the largest ferry system in the U.S.
The Port of Seattle facilitates the fastest growing cruise industry in
the U.S. and is home to the North Pacific Fishing Fleet, the largest
and most sustainable fishery in the world along with our Alaskan
neighbors. In fact, 90% of all goods on a shelf in Alaska, as well as
construction, and infrastructure materials are shipped from Washington
state.
Our ports, vessel operators, labor force, supply chain, designers,
and service providers have a long history of commitment to
environmental performance, quality craftsmanship, and best management
practices. By coupling this legacy industry with a culture of
innovation and investment, we can create a global hub for solutions and
economic growth. This was the impetus for bringing together hundreds of
diverse stakeholders to create a clear strategy for maritime innovation
and sustainability--what we call the ``Blue Economy.''
Our vision is to be the home of a world-class, thriving and
sustainable maritime industry, and after a year-and-a-half of
stakeholder engagement, economic study, and technology trends review,
we agreed on five strategic goals, each with detailed initiatives and
pathways to achieve them:
1. a thriving low carbon maritime industry through deep
decarbonization;
2. a global innovation and investment hub for maritime and ocean
technology;
3. working waterfronts and growing gateways that are clean, smart
and safe job creators;
4. an equitable, diverse, and inclusive 21st century workforce;
and
5. a world-class, coordinated cluster of maritime and ocean
stakeholders.
These goals are underpinned by a clear set of values and definition
of the Blue Economy that all stakeholders could agree upon: a growing
maritime industry, healthy ocean and marine ecosystems, and resilient
communities. This set the stage for us to collaborate across the many
interests involved in our process.
The success of the strategy development, support and adoption is
due to our commitment to a collaborative process. We invited each of
our state's stakeholders from a growing and clean maritime industry.
Besides inviting the usual groups of industry leaders, labor
organizations and public agencies involved in the maritime industry, we
intentionally sought input, early and directly, from tribal leadership,
research institutions, community groups, environmental NGOs, workforce
development providers and the investment community. We understand that
many of the potential solutions to achieve efficiency and reductions in
emissions in maritime operations can be nuanced. It can be challenging,
and some solutions can come with unintended consequences, and require
significant capital costs in an industry with low margins.
It can be easy to hold fast to pre-conceived ideas about
technology, transitions, and impacts. However, committing to a multi-
stakeholder and collaborative planning process can highlight and secure
shared values and commitment. Therefore, when it's time to begin
implementing initiatives and demonstration projects we've been able to
obtain early support and investment of resources, time and capacity.
As we were wrapping up our strategy development last year, it
became clear to our Advisory Council that we needed mechanisms in place
to begin implementing the pathways, initiatives and demonstration
projects outlined in the plan on day-one. We investigated other world
class maritime regions in Norway, Singapore, France, Japan, Germany and
the Netherlands, and elsewhere to understand the structure and
investment pathways for research and development (R&D),
commercialization and operations of technology solutions. What we
consistently found was an organized approach to bring together what we
call the ``Quadruple Helix'' of an innovation cluster: government,
industry, research institutions, and (in our case) workforce and
community partners working together to advance and accelerate
innovation and sustainability.
The day we released the strategy we launched Washington Maritime
Blue as an independent, nonprofit cluster organization, a strategic
alliance for maritime innovation and sustainability. As a partnership
between industry, public sector, research and training institutions,
and community organizations, the mission of this new non-profit is to
create a world-class, thriving, and sustainable maritime industry
through knowledge sharing, collaborative R&D, commercialization, and
business and workforce development.
Supported by the Washington state Department of Commerce, grants,
contracts, industry members and sponsors, the scope of work of the new
organization includes:
Operate a media, marketing and outreach platform for
sharing the opportunities and growth in the maritime/ocean sectors.
Produce public forums and events addressing key topics
such as digitalization, R&D pathways for decarbonization, investment
and entrepreneurship, marine battery safety, etc.
Project manage business development opportunities and
Joint Innovation Projects for members and partners to collaborate on
R&D, demonstration projects, planning and feasibility studies.
Act as an intermediary for the development of equitable,
diverse, career-connected maritime workforce programming for youth,
internships and apprenticeships.
Drive investments and funding to key demonstration
projects and entrepreneurs.
Develop a Maritime Innovation Center as a focal point and
hub for supporting startups and technology development.
In its first year, Washington Maritime Blue has grown to over 75
members including global maritime technology firms, local maritime
operators, design firms, startups, manufacturers and service providers,
as well as public partners such as state agencies, municipalities,
ports, research institutions and community organizations. All of these
members are invested in Washington's maritime and ocean economy in some
way.
Our members are eager to work together to address the technological
challenges the industry is facing. Often, direct competitors are in the
room collaborating to grow collective markets through standardization
and technology transfer. Working together, we are accomplishing the
following:
Completed a ``Capital Landscape Study'' for maritime and
ocean investments in Washington.
Supported the electrification of the Washington state
Ferry fleet through supplier engagement.
Launched a Maritime Innovation Business accelerator with
11 maritime and ocean companies for four months of programming and a
``Demonstration Day'' to potential investors and funders.
Conducting feasibility study and triple bottom-line
decision-making tool for a zero-emission pilot boat.
Among others, there are two specific demonstration projects of note
that members of Maritime Blue are working to complete through the
structure of a Joint Innovation Project. The first is to complete a
feasibility and concept design for a zero-emission, inland cargo vessel
to deliver recycled corrugated cardboard from the urban core in central
Puget Sound out to the Olympic Peninsula to a newly re-opened paper
mill. The mill supports about 150 jobs in a struggling rural community.
A perfect example of what we call ``short sea shipping''. Inspired by
the first all-electric, autonomous cargo vessel delivering fertilizer
throughout the inland waterways of western Norway, Yara Birkland \2\,
this vessel would take hundreds of trucks off the roads, eliminate all
emissions, and support job creation in a rural maritime community.
Naval architects, electrical engineers, system designers, utilities,
classification societies and the Coast Guard will route plan, provide
technology reviews, a concept design and operational profile to
determine feasibility. The role of the cluster organization is to
gather multiple sources of public and private funding, manage the
partners and produce a final study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Yara Birkland Media Kit, https://www.yara.com/news-and-media/
press-kits/yara-birkeland-press-kit/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second is a complete design and construction of a zero-
emission, high-speed, passenger ferry to address both congestion and
impact in the Puget Sound region. The Cluster and project members will
take an existing concept design to complete engineering and
construction with local fabricators, shipbuilders and others in the
product supply chain. Again, we will seek to utilize public dollars to
help buy down the risk of the private investors, owners, and operators
so that we can prove the technology capabilities and begin to
commission similar zero-emission vessels. We hope to rebuild what we
have historically called the ``Mosquito Fleet''--Passenger ferries
crisscrossing Puget Sound, but now with zero-impact on marine waters,
air quality and marine mammals. Greater Seattle has received half a
million new residents in the last ten years, 2,300 last year alone--
that's just under 200 people a day moving to Seattle that will commute
up and down the I-5 corridor. A recent feasibility study of a Tacoma to
Seattle passenger ferry service estimates it would take around 600
cars, twice a day off of the freeway--a 30 mile, but often 2-hour
commute by car.
Washington Maritime Blue is in a unique position to manage these
Joint Innovation Projects. It has the ability to bring together
multiple partners in a structure that can manage competitors as
collaborators. We can create, manage and protect intellectual property
as we innovate together. As an independent organization, it has the
flexibility to bring in capital from multiple sources, public and
private. We can draw expertise and support from our research partners
and others in a supply chain. It is a model most successfully found in
the Norwegian Innovation Cluster Program \3\--supported by Innovation
Norway, a program under the Ministry of Trade and Industry. Ampere, the
first all-electric car ferry was a Joint Innovation Project. The Yara
Birkland was born out of a Joint Innovation Project, as will the first
hydrogen-powered car ferry which is in design and engineering now.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Norwegian Innovation Cluster Program, https://
www.innovasjonnorge.no/no/subsites/forside/Om_NIC/
\4\ NCE Maritime CleanTech hydrogen ferry with Norled, https://
maritimecleantech.no/project/hydrogen-ferry/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having gained insight and examples from others around the globe to
be an effective enabler of innovation, Washington Maritime Blue itself
has now become a model for cluster development. We have fostered an MOU
between the Washington state Department Commerce and Norwegian Ministry
of Trade and Industry to develop economic and business development
opportunities for maritime clean technology. We have partner
organizations in Norway, France, Portugal, Singapore, Canada and Mexico
as well the cities of Boston, San Diego and Anchorage. We have been
supporting federal agencies such as the US Coast Guard (USCG),
Department of Energy (DOE), Maritime Administration (MARAD), National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) as they seek to broaden their role in the
development of clean technology for maritime transportation and the
blue economy. We are supporting other states and regions to develop
their own strategies and cluster organizations such as Rhode Island,
the Gulf Coast, and Alaska.
In Washington state, we often look towards Norway for inspiration.
Our western coastlines have remarkably similar weather, and we both
have naturally deep-water ports with strong fisheries and access to
global trade routes, as well as a legacy of shipbuilding and
craftsmanship. We both have some of the cheapest and cleanest
electricity in the world, and a similar culture. In fact, there are
more Norwegians in Washington state than anywhere else in the world,
outside of Norway. And yes, Norway may have the largest sovereign
wealth fund in the world, but how they invest in innovation in direct
partnership with industry is what sets them apart as a dominant force
in the maritime industry. They have clear strategic plans, and invest
not only in solutions but in the ecosystem and culture of innovation
through industry clusters. Private industry actually asks their
government for stronger regulation so they can build new markets. They
trust that the government will work with them to establish a clear and
consistent regulatory framework and put incentives in place that allow
them to make the incredibly large capital investments needed to achieve
carbon-free solutions. These are the type of actions we ask Congress to
consider.
Industry, ports and communities cannot do it alone. If we are to
achieve the IMO's targets to have zero-emission shipping by 2050, it
will take an organized federal approach, and the right strategic
capital investments by Congress, to support the millions of existing
jobs in the maritime sector and create the next generation of workforce
to make that a reality. This federal support can take many forms: tax
incentives, directed reinvestment strategies, competitive awards, and
others.
We are encouraged by the collaborative approach of some key leaders
in the Department of Energy, NOAA, the Navy, Coast Guard and Maritime
Administration. Washington Maritime Blue recently held a workshop for
federal agencies and national laboratories to engage with our industry
members to help focus and organize R&D pathways for maritime energy
solutions. We intend to help them replicate and scale this approach
around the U.S. We were also pleased to participate in the executive
branch's Summit on Ocean Science and the Blue Economy last November to
help strategize a cross-federal agency approach to solutions.
To maintain momentum and stay competitive, we need Congress to
support a national network of maritime and ocean innovation clusters.
States, regions and cities like ours are bringing together local
government agencies, industry, and research institutions to solve
challenges and create business opportunities and jobs. However, they
cannot foster and enable these ecosystems of innovation and
collaboration alongside growing competitive markets in isolation. State
and local leaders need federal assistance and resources to support
local companies to collaborate and stoke the interest of entrepreneurs
and investors to take advantage of this $3 trillion opportunity over
the next decade.
Washington Maritime Blue is grateful for the U.S. Economic
Development Administration's grant support to develop our state's
strategy and seed our cluster organization. Continued federal support
for the operation of innovation cluster organizations could take the
form of direct funding, providing teams of professional advisors,
marketing support, and facilitation of cross-sector business
opportunities, entrepreneurship, and joint innovation.
It can be risky to be a trailblazer. It can require significant
capital investment, and it can prove challenging to build trust with
community stakeholders. This either becomes a cycle of doubt that slows
the velocity of change or, when collaboration, effective regulation,
and action are embraced, it becomes the sustaining energy that
accelerates a cycle of progress. It is a fact that when maritime
companies are supported in an innovation-based business plan, they can
and will make investments geared toward community empowerment and
sustainable returns. The Maritime Blue Strategy embraces this cycle to
propel the industry and communities forward.
It has been a tremendous process to get to where we are today, but
the course we were able to identify and plot through engaging with all
of our stakeholders and analyzing innovation trends enabled us to build
a plan that does more than sit on a shelf with pretty graphics. As you
see, we are already underway, industry and partners are engaging, and
projects are happening, and we continue to look for public and private
funding opportunities.
You have access to our complete state strategy \5\, and I encourage
you to read through it. It works to advance our goals as an industry,
as a state, and as a partner in the global movement to decarbonize the
maritime industry and improve ocean health, and it seeks to address our
challenges with open dialogue in a thoughtful manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Washington state's Strategy for the Blue Economy (2019) WA
State Dept. of Commerce & DNV GL--www.maritimeblue.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are enabling an entire ecosystem of passionate communities
researching, developing, and implementing a carbon-free maritime
transportation industry. We are investing and innovating for a global,
sustainable blue economy so that we can address these pressing issues
through balance, alignment and careful, committed consideration of
impacts and unintended consequences. We are proud of what we have
created. We are proud to be part of collaborative group of
stakeholders. We are proud to help lead our nation while strengthening
communities and protecting the ocean ecosystem that we are so vitally
connected to.
Together, we can take advantage of models that are working,
continue to gather our resources, and get to work!
Thank you, I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Mr. Maloney. I thank the gentleman. Before I proceed, I
would just like to welcome the congressman from Pennsylvania to
the subcommittee, Mr. Lamb. He is a new member of the
committee, replacing our beloved Elijah Cummings. Congressman
Lamb is an extraordinary Member of Congress, he has very big
shoes to fill.
But we welcome you to the committee. We appreciate you
being here.
Mr. Butler, you may proceed.
Mr. Butler. Chairman Maloney, Ranking Member Gibbs, members
of the committee, thank you very much for the invitation to
testify today.
The subcommittee's focus on decarbonization of shipping is
timely. This issue has been under discussion at the
International Maritime Organization for a number of years. But
the IMO's discussions and actions have become much more focused
and urgent in the past 2 years.
Mr. Chairman, as you referenced, in 2018 the IMO adopted an
initial greenhouse gas strategy, and it has set numeric goals
for reduction of greenhouse gases from international shipping.
The first goal is a 40-percent increase in efficiency by
2030. The second goal is a 50-percent reduction in absolute
greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, versus a 2008 baseline. And
thereafter, the strategy calls for emissions to be reduced to
zero, or near zero, as soon as possible after 2050.
The first goal, the efficiency goal for 2030, can most
likely be met by wringing further efficiencies from fossil
fuel-powered ships.
The second goal, the 2050 goal, will require that we find
new fuels and related technologies to replace fossil fuels.
That is where the activities in the title of this hearing come
into play: ``Investments and Innovation.''
When we examined the progress being made on research and
development to move shipping away from fossil fuels, it became
clear that the scope of R&D underway today is insufficient to
deliver the results that we need for deep-sea vessels. In
response to that need to jumpstart R&D, we began work over 2
years ago on a proposal to the IMO to create an industry-funded
global R&D program focused on developing fuels and related
technologies that can allow shipping to move away from fossil
fuels. That work has resulted in a comprehensive proposal that
we and seven other maritime organizations submitted to the IMO
last month, and that full proposal has been included with my
written testimony.
This proposal, if adopted, would create a new body under
the IMO that we have called the International Maritime Research
and Development Board, or IMRB. Boiled down to its essence, the
IMRB would manage a global, targeted R&D grant program funded
by a mandatory contribution on each ton of fuel burned. Based
on current global marine fuel consumption, this should generate
between $5 and $6 billion in R&D funding over the next 10 to 12
years.
As you will see from my written testimony, we have
addressed funding, governance, intellectual property, conflicts
of interest, and many other details that have to be gotten
right in order to make this proposal work. There are lots of
details, but the logic behind why we made this proposal is
quite simple.
First, it is clear that we have to get beyond fossil fuels
in order to make the dramatic cuts in greenhouse gases from
shipping that are necessary to meet the IMO's goal.
Second, today, we do not have the fuels and related systems
that we can install on oceangoing vessels to meet those goals.
Third, the current level of R&D work is not likely to
deliver the necessary fuels and systems in time to meet the
IMO's ambitious targets, particularly the 2050 target.
And finally, the necessary level of research and
development will not simply materialize by itself. So we need
to take action now in an organized fashion to make sure that
that work gets done.
We look forward to working with the United States and other
IMO member states to bring the IMRB into existence.
I welcome your questions.
[Mr. Butler's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John W. Butler, President and Chief Executive
Officer, World Shipping Council
Introduction: The World Shipping Council and the Liner Shipping
Industry
Chairman Maloney, 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 (WSC
or the Council).\1\ The Council 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 on-going
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions and the Technological Challenge of
Transforming the International Fleet
The Subcommittee's focus on decarbonization of shipping is timely.
This challenge is today the single largest issue under consideration by
the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a specialized United
Nations body that regulates international shipping. As discussed later
in this testimony, the World Shipping Council and seven other shipping
organizations last month submitted to the IMO a comprehensive proposal
to establish a $5-6 billion research and development effort over a 10-
12 year period to identify the fuels and related technologies of the
future that will be necessary for the maritime industry and to meet the
aggressive decarbonization goals that the IMO has recently established.
That program would be organized under the IMO, and it would be paid for
by a fee on each ton of marine fuel burned.
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 2030 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. A highly competitive liner shipping
market, fuel price increases associated with the IMO 2020 marine fuel
sulphur cap regulation, and increasing societal and customer
requirements to reduce emissions provide vessel operators with powerful
incentives to make their operations as efficient as possible.
In contrast to the likelihood that the IMO's 2030 GHG objectives
can be met by operational and design measures 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 the IMO's ambitious global GHG
reduction goals, it is imperative that new fuels and related
propulsion, fuel storage, and fuel infrastructure are engineered and
deployed. Moreover, that 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. Ocean vessels have a
commercial lifespan of 20-25 years, which means that investment
decisions made today will be with us for a generation. This means that
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 that the industry faces is that, although there are
promising possibilities for the fuels of the future, none of those
candidate fuels are available today to be installed on large ships
serving trans-oceanic routes. Hydrogen, ammonia, and other fuels have
been identified as possible replacements for fossil fuels in marine
applications, but these fuels present storage, handling, and production
challenges that must be overcome before they are practically and safely
available for widespread use. There may be additional options which
have not yet received the same level of examination.
Vessels that sail across oceans must obviously carry their fuel
with them, and that means that 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 critical criteria represent
technical challenges that will require substantial effort and
engineering expertise to resolve. The solutions will not simply appear
by themselves.
The Proposal for an International Maritime Research and Development
Board
Based on the introduction 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
International Maritime Organization 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 would be to create and support a dedicated
research and development effort to identify and develop, for 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
find 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, the World Shipping Council and seven other international
shipping organizations submitted to the IMO a proposal to create the
International Maritime Research and Development Board (IMRB).
A copy of the comprehensive submission that we made to the IMO on
the IMRB proposal is attached to my testimony as Exhibit A. Boiled down
to its essence, the decarbonization research and development effort
would be a global, targeted grant program funded by a mandatory
contribution based on each ton of fuel burned. This is a detailed
proposal that 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. Research and development 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 research and development 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.
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 research and development work that
is essential to decarbonizing shipping. That research is not occurring
today on a schedule or on 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 reduce and 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 growing 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.
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 logical next 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
United States and other IMO member states to bring the IMRB into
existence.
exhibit a
International Maritime Organization
_______________________________________________________________________
REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS
proposal to establish an international maritime research and
development board (imrb)
[Exhibit A is retained in committee files and is available online
following page 6 of Mr. Butler's prepared statement at https://
docs.house.gov/meetings/PW/PW07/20200114/110356/HHRG-116-PW07-Wstate-
ButlerJ-20200114.pdf.]
Mr. Maloney. I thank the gentleman.
Dr. Kindberg, am I saying your name correctly?
Ms. Kindberg. [No response.]
Mr. Maloney. Dr. Kindberg, am I pronouncing your name
correctly?
Kindberg? See, I knew there was a good chance I had that
wrong, so forgive me.
Dr. Kindberg, you may proceed.
Ms. Kindberg. Thank you. Chairman Maloney, Ranking Member
Gibbs, and members of the committee, thank you for the
invitation to speak today.
Ocean shipping has the most energy-efficient way to move
cargo long distances, and has the lowest carbon footprint per
unit shipped of any mode of transportation. Ships use very
large diesel engines to move those mountains of cargo. Think
80,000 horsepower engines with great big cylinder heads. And
that creates greenhouse gases and other pollutants coming out
of the exhaust. Shipping generates 2 to 3 percent of all
manmade greenhouse gases.
Since 2008, Maersk has reduced our greenhouse gas and other
emissions by 42 percent per container moved, 42 percent since
2008. And I might mention that your colleague, Congressman
Lowenthal, has been with us, encouraging and sometimes pushing
us, all the way since about 2006 on this.
Now our customers and other stakeholders are now asking us
to do more, to go all the way to zero-carbon shipping. And a
year ago we made a commitment to do just that, to achieve zero-
carbon shipping by 2050. Now, that sounds like a distant and
rather fluffy goal, but the lifetime of a vessel is 20 to 25
years. So let's think through this.
And we, by the way, operate 700 vessels. So to have zero
emissions for the whole fleet by 2050, that means we have to
have the first commercial vessel on the water by 2030, which
means that we have to order it by 2028, which means we have to
have designed it by 2027, which means we have got the next 5 to
7 years to define what is going to go into that design.
This is not a distant goal. This is a major transformation,
and we can't do it alone.
We are continuing our cutting-edge efficiency work with a
goal of 60-percent reduction by 2030. We are already testing
biobased fuels, batteries, and other technologies, some of them
actually on commercial vessels. As we speak, our first net-
zero-carbon shipments are on a ship headed back from Singapore,
using a renewable biofuel blend made from used cooking oil. And
we are developing new renewable fuels, including one that
involves ethanol and lignin from plants and wood.
But the biggest challenges ahead are not just on the ships.
The land-based industries and infrastructure must be there to
supply the fuels and technologies at scale, and we must do it
without jeopardizing food production or forests. Economic and
policy systems must also adapt to support this transformation.
So what we need to make this happen, first, focused R&D,
which, of course, Mr. Butler discussed; alignment between
national, State, and international goals, and the legal systems
that support them. The International Maritime Organization sets
the rules for international shipping and has set metrics and
goals for vessel emissions.
Requirements also need to be clearly written and well
enforced, and encourage early action, but not penalize early
actors. And yes, we advocate for strong enforcement, and we are
doing so globally. We need a level playing field. And we count
on enforcement to make that happen.
Now, let me give a recent example to show the importance of
this. A couple of you mentioned the 2020 fuel rule, which
reduced sulfur significantly. And most of the global fleet has
started complying with that. And, of course, it just went into
effect a couple of weeks ago. But where--most of us are
complying with that, using cleaner fuels. It is expensive,
cleaner fuels. It is going to cost my company $2 billion a
year. So it is very expensive. And we fully support the goals,
and we are complying.
But the temptation is probably out there for others. A
vessel sailing from Asia to Europe could save close to $750,000
for one ship on one voyage by ignoring the new rule. 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, too.
Ladies and gentlemen, the transformation to low- or zero-
carbon shipping is an energy transformation, not just a vessel
modification. Huge changes to both vessel and land-based
infrastructures must happen to produce and distribute those new
energy sources, and policies and laws must adapt to enable that
change.
Therefore, thank you for this opportunity to be part of the
conversation.
[Ms. Kindberg's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of B. Lee Kindberg, Ph.D., Head of Environment and
Sustainability-North America, Maersk
Chairman DeFazio, Chairman Maloney, Ranking Member Gibbs, and
Members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation to testify
today.
Maersk is the world's largest container shipping company and has
long been committed to environmental leadership in our operations. We
are headquartered in Copenhagen Denmark and operate over 700 container
vessels globally, as well as our APMT marine terminals, Svitzer ocean-
going tugs, and other supply chain logistics facilities in North
America and around the world.
Maersk is committed to ensuring that our business practices are
safe, responsible and transparent. Our vision and priorities are
discussed in more detail in our Sustainability Reports, available on
our website at https://www.Maersk.com/en/business/sustainability.
Our global Sustainability Strategy identifies four key
sustainability priorities, our Shared Value Programs:
1. Decarbonizing logistics,
2. Contributing to halving food loss,
3. Helping to multiply the benefits of trade in developing
regions,
4. Leading change in the global ship recycling industry.
Our most significant environmental impact is the air emissions
produced by fuel consumption in our ships' very large diesel engines.
These include both Greenhouse gases (primarily CO2, often referred to
as ``carbon'') and criteria air pollutants (SOx, NOx, fine particles).
The shipping industry emits 2-3% of the world's anthropogenic CO2
and is the only industry to have set global metrics and goals on energy
efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants such as
sulfur.
Maersk alone emits approx. 0.1% of this 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 reduces operating costs and also reduces
emissions of both greenhouse gases and criterial pollutants. In the
last decade Maersk has reduced our fuel consumed and related emissions
by 42% 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.
In December 2018 Maersk announced a goal of Net Zero Carbon
Shipping by 2050. That commitment means we are working to launch our
first zero carbon vessel by 2030. We are also continuing our energy
efficiency work with a 2030 goal of a 60% reduction in emissions vs.
2008.
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 providers, investors, legislators and especially our
customers to meet the target.
Investments
We are approaching full implementation of the Radical Retrofit
program, a $1Billion investment commitment over 5 years started in
2015. We also continue to make significant progress on maturing,
hardening and fully implementing the ``Connected Vessel''
digitalization project. This program is connecting our fleet digitally
with our global operations coordination centers and enables real-time
optimization of operational conditions to reduce fuel consumption and
related emissions. These programs are successfully delivering increased
efficiencies and reduced emissions.
Maersk's recent announcement of Net Zero Carbon emissions by 2050
comes with significant plans for future investments, including further
energy efficiency work, alternative fuel development, and the
technologies needed to build zero carbon vessels.
Action on Zero emissions shipping
As an industry leader Maersk feels a great responsibility to do our
part to fight climate change and reduce our impacts significantly.
Significant innovative solutions must be developed and start to be
implemented by 2030 in order to meet the goal of net zero carbon
emissions by 2050 from our vessel operations.
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 ship yards.
2. Electrification. We are preparing an installation of a major
battery on a vessel during 2020 to learn how this technology might be
useful on a vessel and to drive further development on the technology.
Our work in this area will increase significantly going forward. 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 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 was conducted together with 4
major customers. This success led to a new Net Zero Carbon shipping
service called ``ECO-Delivery.'' The first commercial voyage including
ECO Delivery shipments is currently on the water.
Lignin Ethanol Oil (``LEO'') biofuel: Maersk, together
with a coalition of US-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.
The need for strong enforcement of climate and air emissions rules
As of 1 January 2020, all ships had to cut their SOx emissions by
over 80%. This has been a major and comprehensive transition and the
vast majority of the global fleet (including Maersk vessels) has done
so by switching to low sulfur fuel. This comes at a very steep price;
for Maersk alone, the additional bill is estimated to be around $2
billion per year. Maersk fully supports the IMO2020 Regulation and will
naturally respect it.
However, given the very large potential savings by non-compliance,
we would like to emphasize the need for strong enforcement and adequate
fines to deter non-compliance. Such fines should as a minimum cover the
total amount saved by non-compliance including the part of the voyage
on the high-seas. 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 to secure 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 paraphrase one of our senior leaders who stated
that the main challenge in the transformation to low or zero emissions
shipping is not at sea but on land. The technological changes inside
the vessels are minor compared to the massive innovative solutions and
fuel transformation that must take place to produce and distribute
entirely new energy sources.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide this input.
Mr. Maloney. Thank you, Dr. Kindberg.
Mr. Bryn, am I saying your name correctly?
Mr. Bryn. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Maloney. Thank God. You may proceed, sir, thanks.
Mr. Bryn. I have gotten a lot of versions, so that--you got
it. Thank you.
Chairman Maloney, Ranking Member Gibbs, members of the
subcommittee, and my fellow panelists, good morning and thank
you for the opportunity to testify on this incredibly important
topic.
ABB has been an electrification and automation leader for
over a century. With 147,000 global employees, 24,000 of which
are here in the U.S., we are a market leader in power grids,
advanced manufacturing, and electric transportation. For
example, ABB has deployed over 13,000 electric vehicle fast
chargers, worldwide. ABB has 60 manufacturing sites in the
U.S., with domestic headquarters in North Carolina, and global
headquarters in Switzerland.
One example of ABB's marine technology is aboard the U.S.
Coast Guard Great Lakes icebreaker, Mackinaw, where ABB
provided our electric azipod propellers and the vessel's
integrated diesel-electric power system.
ABB is excited to help lead the maritime industry toward
zero emissions, as climate change is one of the greatest
challenges of our time. ABB supports the Paris Agreement to
avert the potentially devastating consequences of climate
change. As a company with 9,000 technologists set to invest $23
billion in innovation through 2030, ABB urges policymakers to
adopt sound and predictable climate policies to encourage
innovation.
Today I would like to cover three main points: the current
state of marine technology, the opportunity to lower life-cycle
costs and emissions, and how the Federal Government can help
speed adoption.
Globally, the maritime industry remains dominated by diesel
power, but the beginnings of a significant shift are underway.
For many vessels the first step is to electrify the propulsion
system, meaning the propeller is directly powered by an
electric motor. This arrangement allows for any energy sources
to provide the power from diesel or LNG generators, to
batteries, to fuel cells. In the near term, this can help many
Jones Act vessels reduce their emissions. Longer term, this
makes it far easier to retrofit low-carbon technologies as they
commercialize.
So what zero-emission solutions are available today? It is
critical to fit the right solution to each vessel's needs. And
in the U.S. there are three primary vessel segments to
consider: tugs and towboats, passenger vessels, and oceangoing
vessels.
Let's begin with ferries, as they have become one of the
pioneering vessel types for zero-emission battery deployment.
This is because they operate a predictable schedule to just a
few ports, meaning batteries can be sized with confidence, and
only limited shoreside charging infrastructure is required.
As an example, ABB is proud to be powering the new Maid of
the Mist tour boats in Niagara Falls, which will become the
first new-build, all-electric vessels in the U.S. when they
enter service this spring. The battery banks on these 500-
horsepower boats will be recharged in 7 minutes between each
voyage. Much larger will be the Washington State Ferries fleet,
which operates throughout Puget Sound, as this organization has
committed itself to an all-electric future.
But what about tugs, towboats, and oceangoing vessels?
Well, that, too, depends on their operating profile. For
example, many harbor tugs, inland towboats, and dredgers spent
significant time at idle or low load, which is inefficient for
the diesel engine. For these vessels, a diesel-electric plant
with a battery can help optimize engine efficiency, while
significantly reducing engine hours.
Conversely, for vessels that spend most of their time near
full power, like a product tanker, containership, or linehaul
towboat, the diesel engine already operates quite efficiently.
And so installation of a shaft generator and/or fuel switching
to LNG or biofuels may be more appropriate in the near term.
But despite these near-term improvements, to get to zero
emissions, new technologies like hydrogen fuel cells must be
considered. ABB is already working with smaller commercially
available fuel cells, and is jointly developing a 3-megawatt
marine fuel cell with Ballard Power Systems for oceangoing
vessels. In France, ABB is proud to be powering what will
become the world's first fuel-cell-powered towboat.
With that, I would like to close with a few policy
opportunities to support the transition to a zero-emission
marine future.
First, green the Federal fleet. The U.S. Government is a
globally leading shipowner. And, as such, it can use its buying
power to deploy cost-effective advanced technologies for its
own vessels.
Two, support financing mechanisms and direct funding for
private-sector, zero-emission vessels. While the total life-
cycle cost of an electrified vessel can be lower than a diesel-
mechanical equivalent, the upfront costs are often higher. This
investment can still be a challenge for shipowners, and so
financial support for early adopters to help build volume will
bring down costs, long term, for the private sector.
Three, invest in research and development. While there are
commercially available solutions today for some marine
segments, continued technology improvement is needed to serve
more challenging vessel applications.
I thank you again for the opportunity, and look forward to
your questions.
[Mr. Bryn's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter Bryn, Technical Solutions Manager-North
America, ABB Marine and Ports
Executive Summary
ABB has been an electrification and automation technology leader
for over a century. With about 147,000 employees across the globe and
24,000 here in the US, we are a market leader in power grids, advanced
manufacturing technology, and electric transportation. This includes
electric vehicle charging infrastructure as well as marine and port
electrification and automation solutions. The marine industry in the
early stages of a transformation to low and zero emissions
technologies. While there is no one-size fits all approach to reducing
marine emissions, ABB believes the future of marine vessels will be
electric, digital, and connected.
1. With electric propulsion systems, marine vessels can get to
zero emissions. Most alternative propulsion system arrangements are
centered around an electric powertrain, including diesel or LNG
electric hybrids ships, full battery powered ships, and fuel cell
powered ships. Electric propulsion not only cuts emissions but also
improve safety and reliability while reducing lifecycle costs. An
electric-based powertrain is also futureproof as new power sources are
developed. Whether the power source is fuel cells, batteries, ammonia-
fueled generators, or a wave energy harvesting system, electric
powertrains can integrate them. This is especially important for Jones
Act vessels which often undergo multiple repowers over their sometimes
50+ year lives.
2. It's critical to fit the right solution to the vessel. Vessel
types are as varied as the missions they serve and cargoes they carry.
Ferries, inland towboats, harbor tugs, offshore workboats, and
oceangoing vessels all have different operational characteristics that
require different low or zero emission technologies. Fortunately, there
are a number of such technologies either available today or under
development including diesel or LNG electric hybrids, biofuels, fuel
cells, and batteries. Accordingly, policies should focus on setting
emissions targets for the marine industry, allowing the industry to
assemble the best technology solution for meeting emissions and
operational goals, and providing support to the marine industry as they
meet those targets.
3. Lifecyle costs of electric powertrains are typically lower than
conventional diesel powered vessels. Vessels with electric powertrains
and direct current (DC) electrical systems typically cost less to
operate over their lifetime due to higher energy efficiency, lower
maintenance, and reduced fuel costs. However, their upfront capital
costs tend to be higher. This challenge is similar to other recent
energy technology breakthroughs, like wind and solar power and electric
vehicles. However, through a myriad of research, development, and
deployment policies and incentives, those upfront costs have come down
considerably and have reached or are approaching cost parity. With
appropriate support, the same will happen with zero emission marine
technologies.
4. Low and zero emission marine vessel technologies are in the
early stages of adoption and need government and policy support. Today
there are commercially available zero emission marine technologies for
some segments, like ferries. However, they tend to be more expensive
upfront to purchase, which is a big deterrent to ship owners and
operators, even though they are cheaper to operate. For other segments
like offshore workboats, and oceangoing vessels, cost-effective
commercially available zero emission solutions are still in their very
early stages of development. To lower costs and reach a fully zero
emission vessel fleet, deployment of existing technology and
development of new technology must be expedited. The industry would
benefit from government investments in research, development, and
deployment of zero emission marine technologies.
Introduction
Good morning Chairman DeFazio, Chairman Maloney, Ranking Member
Graves, Ranking Member Gibbs, members of the Subcommittee and my fellow
panelists. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is
Peter Bryn and I am Technical Solutions Manager in ABB Inc.'s Marine
and Ports Business Line.
ABB is an electrification and automation technology leader that is
driving digital transformation of industries. With a history of
innovation spanning more than 130 years, ABB has four customer-focused,
globally leading businesses: Electrification, Industrial Automation,
Motion, and Robotics & Discrete Automation, supported by ABB AbilityTM
digital platform. With about 147,000 employees across the globe, we are
a market leader in power grids, advanced manufacturing technology, and
electric transportation. This includes electric vehicle charging
infrastructure and marine and port electrification and automation.
ABB is proud of our 24,000 US employees along with our 60 US
manufacturing or assembly sites and significant operations in 32
states, including Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Wisconsin, and North Carolina which is home to our U.S.
headquarters. Our global headquarters is in Zurich, Switzerland. Over
the past decade we have invested over $14 billion in the United States,
more than tripling our workforce.
ABB Commitment to Reducing Emissions
Climate change is one of the biggest challenges of our time. ABB
supports the Paris Agreement, which came into force in November 2016,
and considers it the linchpin of efforts to limit global warming and
avert the potential devastating consequences of climate change. ABB
actively contributes to climate goals by encouraging the early and
rapid adoption of clean technologies and by helping its customers
improve energy efficiency and productivity while extending the
lifecycles of their equipment and reducing waste.
Meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement will require significant
investment in new and upgraded technologies, which will only be
forthcoming with solid, reliable, and predictable policymaking. As a
company with around 9,000 technologists that is set to invest around
$23 billion in innovation between the signing of the Paris Agreement
and 2030, ABB urges policymakers to adopt sound climate policies to
encourage innovation and create secure investment conditions.
ABB understands that investments in developing and deploying
technologies that reduce climate impacts, while incrementally higher
cost at first, lead to significant intermediate and long-term cost
savings. Such technologies are core to ABB, as nearly 60 percent of
ABB's global revenues are derived from technologies that directly
address the causes of climate change through energy efficiency,
renewables integration, and resource conservation. The marine sector
also holds a similar promise of reducing emissions and overall costs.
ABB's contributions to climate goals are widely acknowledged and
were recognized in August 2018 by ``Fortune'' magazine, which named ABB
as one of the top 10 companies that are changing the world. ABB has set
its own target to reduce its GHG emissions by 40 percent by 2020 from a
2013 baseline.
Reducing Marine Emissions
We are in the very early stages of a transformation of the marine
industry to low and zero emissions technologies. While ports have
already begun their march toward electrification, which enables zero
emission operations, the marine sector is just beginning. ABB provides
ship and port electrification and automation technologies and
solutions. From replacing diesel powered cranes at ports with electric
solutions powered by microgrids, to fully electrifying marine vessel
propulsion systems, and everything in between, we believe the future of
the maritime industry will be electric, digital, and connected. These
technologies are used in ports across the US, from Charleston, South
Carolina to Long Beach, California. And the Coast Guard has deployed
one of ABB's advanced diesel-electric hybrid propulsion systems on the
Great Lakes Icebreaker, the USCGC Mackinaw.
Global Adoption of Zero Emissions Technology
Globally, the maritime industry remains dominated by diesel-power,
but the beginnings of a significant shift in energy source is underway.
The start of adoption of low to zero emission ship technology is shown
in Figure 1. While conventional power plants still dominate, a
significant jump in both battery powered and liquified natural gas
(LNG) ships is evident in Figure 2.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 1. Alternative fuel by ship count (DNVGL, 2018)
By vessel type, certain technologies are emerging because they
complement the vessel's operational profile. For example, ferries are
great candidates for batteries because of their short distance
operation and predictable port calls, which allow for installation of
shore chargers. Conversely, container ships travel long distances and
have incredibly high power demands. Because battery and fuel cell
technologies need more research and development to be able to meet
oceangoing vessels' needs cost-effectively, these ship owners and
operators have begun adopting LNG.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 2. Alternative fuel by ship type (DNVGL, 2018)
An Electrified Propulsion System
Most alternative propulsion system arrangements are centered around
an electrified powertrain. Whether diesel or LNG electric hybrids, full
battery power, or fuel cell power, most low and zero emissions vessels
will employ an electrified powertrain. Electric propulsion can not only
cut emissions but also improves safety and reliability while reducing
lifecycle costs. An electric-based powertrain is critical as it allows
for easy integration of current and future power sources, which is
important for Jones Act vessels that often undergo multiple repowers
over their sometimes 50+ year lives.
Fitting the Right Solution
Vessel designs vary significantly, based on the vessel's
application and purpose. The low and zero emission technologies that
will be selected for a particular project will be dictated by the needs
and operational profile of the vessel. These technologies may include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Emissions Net Zero Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diesel-Electric Full Battery-Electric
Diesel-Electric with Propulsion and Shore Charging
Battery Fuel Cell with Net-zero
Diesel-Electric with Fuel
Battery and Shore Charging Biofuels (some)
Power Take In/Take Off Ammonia
(PTO/PTI)
LNG/dual-fueled engines
Biofuels (some)
Fuel Cell with Fossil-
Derived Fuel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is critical that ship owners and operators identify the proper
solution for their vessel whether using a conventional diesel engine
arrangement or some combination of low or zero emissions technologies.
For example, a harbor tug which operates with a significant amount of
idle time and short bursts of full power during operation has a very
different operational profile than a Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC)
tanker which trades internationally on the spot market across oceans
and can spend days at anchorage. Failing to consider the vessel's
operation may lead to a propulsion system that is less efficient and
cost effective than the diesel-mechanical baseline.
ABB is working with many Jones Act vessel owners, operators, and
designers to seek the best solution for their operation. This ranges
from ferries to fishing boats, harbor tugboats to dredgers, and
passenger vessels to river towboats.
Across segments, some recurring challenges persist. First, while
the total lifecycle cost of ownership of a vessel with electric
propulsion is lower than a diesel-powered vessel, the upfront costs are
often higher. Second, research, development, demonstration, and
deployment investments are needed to bring down costs of these new
systems and commercialize zero emissions solutions for more challenging
applications like high speed catamarans and oceangoing cargo vessels.
US Newbuild Market
In the private sector, newbuild construction in the US is largely
dominated by Short Distance Shipping (SDS) vessels, particularly tugs,
towboats, and passenger vessels. By comparison, there is a small number
of Oceangoing Vessels (OGV), as per Figure 3.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 3. Recent US newbuild construction (Colton, 2019)
There are some exciting opportunities for Jones Act oceangoing
vessels in the burgeoning offshore wind market, government fleet,
offshore oil/gas activity, and larger cargo vessel markets. However,
the bulk of this testimony will focus on the coastal and inland vessel
markets, where most US newbuild construction is occurring.
Common US Vessel Types and Solutions
Road and Passenger Ferries
Ferries have become one of the pioneering vessel types for zero-
emission battery deployment because they combine generally shorter
routes with regular port visits. The shorter routes allow installation
of battery packs that can fully power the vessels on their journeys
while the predictable routes and turnaround times enable efficient
deployment of shoreside charging infrastructure.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational profile...................... Fixed route, limited distance, not overly weight sensitive, volume
limited
Conventional solution.................... Diesel mechanical to propeller
Reduced emission solution................ Diesel electric with battery with propulsion motor to propeller
Zero emissions solution.................. Battery-electric with propulsion motor to propeller
Common challenges........................ Charging infrastructure, utility demand charges
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, it's unsurprising that the ferry industry is
among the first marine segments to adopt full battery-electric
solutions. The first fully electric, battery-powered vessels to be
built in the US are the two new Maid of the Mist ferries being powered
by ABB. These Niagara Falls tour boats will be powered by a pair of
battery packs with a total capacity of 316 kWh, split evenly between
two catamaran hulls creating two independent power systems providing
full redundancy.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 4. New Maid of the Mist Ferry
The vessels will charge between every trip while passengers
disembark and board. Shoreside charging will only take seven minutes,
allowing the batteries to power the electric propulsion motors capable
of a total 400 kW (563 HP) output. This will all be controlled by ABB's
integrated Power and Energy Management System (PEMS), which will
optimize the energy use on board.
From small to large, most ferry boats and routes can be
electrified. In 2018, two ForSea Ferries, operating between Denmark and
Sweden, became the largest battery powered ferries, following an ABB-
led conversion.
Figure 5. ForSea Ferries
Economics play a large part in the push toward electrification.
While zero emission boats tend to have higher capital costs,
operational costs are much lower than diesel powered ships, making them
more cost-effective over the lifetime of the vessel. Figure 6 is an
example for an existing ferry opportunity where the battery electric
option (Case E) is more expensive up front, but because it costs less
to operate, the ship owner or operator ends up saving $800,000 over the
life the vessel. Just like with electric vehicles, increased
deployments, financing support, as well as research and development can
help lower the upfront capital cost of zero emission options.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 6. Example of Project Economics for ABB Ferry Project
In addition to the cost savings of choosing a zero emission
solution, the CO2 emissions reductions are stark, as shown in Figure 7.
A significant reduction of CO2 is shown in the battery electric option,
which assumes an emissions profile in line with the energy generation
mix of the power grid in California.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 7. Example of Project Emissions Estimate for ABB Ferry Project
Harbor Tugs
Like ferries, harbor tugboats operate on short routes and typically
return to the same port every evening. However, unlike ferries, they
have significant idling time and higher power demands. To reduce
emissions, a diesel-electric system with a smaller diesel generator and
a battery bank can satisfy onboard power requirements when stationary
while being ready to provide maneuvering power in an instant.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational profile...................... 60% idle time, 35% at <40% power, <5% at full power
Conventional solution.................... Diesel mechanical to propeller
Reduced emission solution................ Diesel electric with peak shaving battery, possibly plug-in,
propulsion motor to propeller
Zero emissions solution.................. Battery-electric or fuel cell-electric, propulsion motor to propeller
Common challenges........................ Space for battery room, sometimes unpredictable periods away from
dock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 8 is an example of a typical tugboat use-case where a
smaller diesel-electric powertrain paired with smaller battery for peak
shaving (Cases C) or a larger battery for propulsion to be charged at
port (Case D) were recommended by ABB. Like the ferry example above,
despite higher upfront capital costs, the lower operating costs of an
electric propulsion system can save the ship owner operator over $6m
over the life of the vessel. Programs that address upfront capital
costs will help increase deployments of low emission technologies and
enable price reductions that come with scale and experience. For
example, a low-interest loan program to cover the difference in capital
cost could increase adoption.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 8. Example of Project Economics for ABB Tugboat Project
Inland Towboats
Inland towboats operate under a wide range of profiles. Factors
like voyage length and consistency of docking schedule will drive
either a battery-electric or fuel cell-electric solution. Less
ambitious emission reductions can be achieved using a diesel-electric
hybrid system with a battery.
ABB is proud to be providing a complete fuel cell-electric power
system for what will become one of the world's first fuel cell powered
towboats, which will be operated by Compagnie Fluviale de Transport
(CFT) of France.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational profile...................... Unit tows: varying length voyages
Shuttle boat: short distance transits, long idle time
Fleeting boat: stays local to fleet moving barges in and out
Linehaul boat: regular long-distance hauls
Conventional solution.................... Diesel mechanical to propeller
Reduced emission solution................ Unit tows, shuttleboat: Diesel electric with battery
Fleeting boat: Battery-electric
Linehaul boat: PTO/PTI
Zero emissions solution.................. Unit tows, shuttle boat, linehaul boat: Fuel cell-electric
Fleeting boat: Battery-electric
Common challenges........................ Highly capex-focused market, cautious about new technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offshore Workboats
Offshore workboats have yet a different operational profile. Many
have long dwell-times when servicing offshore assets like a wind farm
or oil and gas rig, while also needing onboard power for ancillary
service-related systems. A first step to reduce emissions for these
workboats is to add batteries to a diesel-electric system. The
batteries can be used to optimize diesel performance by assuming the
very transient loads arising from the podded thrusters as they start
and stop while in dynamic positioning mode. The diesel may shut off
completely, or if running can operate at an optimal, steady point and
avoid constantly ramping up and down. A movement to zero emissions will
likely entail a fuel cell-electric propulsion system with battery.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational profile...................... Varied, but often have high dwell times and significant non-
propulsive loads
Conventional solution.................... Varies, but often diesel-electric with podded propulsors
Reduced emission solution................ Diesel-electric with battery storage for optimized operation
Zero emissions solution.................. Fuel cell-electric with battery storage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABB is proud to have powered the NKT Victoria, a specialized
offshore cable-laying workboat, with ABB's Onboard DC Grid system and
achieved a remarkable 60% CO2 reduction versus a comparable vessel.
This was achieved both because of greater efficiency in the propulsion
system, but also due to operational changes that the electrified system
permitted.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 9. NKT Victoria
Oceangoing Cargo Vessels
Oceangoing cargo vessels often have predictable operational
characteristics, however their long distance routes, coupled with very
short port stays, make full battery-electric propulsion systems
challenging. The first step toward reducing emissions is to use an
alternative fuel like LNG or biofuel, and potentially adding battery
storage. A move toward zero emissions would likely incorporate a fuel
cell-electric propulsion system, which ABB is developing for this need.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At Sea In Port
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational profile............................................... Most spend long periods of time at sea with limited port turnaround time
Conventional solution............................................. Slow speed diesel to propeller Operate diesel-powered generators and
steam boiler
Reduced emission solution......................................... Alternative fueled (e.g. LNG, DCold ironing (vessel plugs into local
possibly with battery shore power) or battery
Zero emissions solution........................................... Fuel cell-electric with propulsion motor to propeller, or engine with net-zero fuel
(e.g. ammonia, biofuel) direct to propeller
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While in port, achieving zero emissions is possible for some
vessels today by connecting to a shoreside power source, often called
``shore power,'' ``ship to shore,'' or ``cold ironing''. ABB has
provided a number of cold ironing installations across the globe
involving both the onboard and shoreside equipment. There are
challenges to cold ironing as most older vessels are not outfitted to
accept shore power and not all ports are currently equipped to support
it. Cold ironing can be of limited value if there are substantial non-
electric loads (e.g. crude oil tanker steam-powered cargo pumps) or if
the in-port power demands are not overly significant (e.g. a bulker
with only hotel loads). In light of the unique demands of oceangoing
vessels, more investment in research, development, and demonstration
projects is needed to deliver cost-effective and commercially scalable
zero emission solutions for these vessels.
Summary and Recommendations
The marine industry is just beginning its march toward zero
emissions with commercially ready cost effective solutions available
today to meet the needs of multiple vessel segments. There are,
however, some segments, like oceangoing vessels, that require
significant additional technology research and development in order to
reach a zero emission target. One commonality across all segments,
which is also true across many new technologies, is that with scale and
experience, costs trend downward. This has been the case with solar and
wind power, and also electric vehicles. To same will hold true for
marine vessels.
There are a number of actions that the Federal Government and this
Committee can take to increase deployment of existing zero emission
technologies, invest in the zero emissions technologies of the future,
and grow US leadership in the marine sector for decades to come.
1. Green the Federal Fleet. The US government is a globally
leading shipowner, and as such it can become a pacesetter in deploying
cost-effective, advanced technologies. In addition to Department of
Defense ships, the US owned fleet includes Coast Guard, MARAD, and
National Park Service vessels.
ABB encourages the Committee to set an ambitious, long-term
national plan to achieve zero emissions for all vessels under its
operation. Doing so would have a meaningful impact directly on vessel
emissions and establish the private US maritime industry as a global
technology leader. This would also help the US do its part toward
meeting the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Sustainability
Goals. ABB is prepared to support the Committee in developing such a
strategy to seek realistic, cost-effective solutions.
2. Limit Tier 4 Engine waivers to where true hardships exist.
After a thorough rulemaking process and cost justification, EPA
requirements for reduced emission engines have arrived. Engine
manufacturers have provided proven, cost-effective engine solutions to
meet these requirements. While EPA is not under the jurisdiction of
this Committee, waivers for vessels under this Committee's jurisdiction
should be issued judiciously and only after thorough demonstration of
hardship to meet the requirement.
3. Support financing mechanisms and direct funding for private
sector, zero-emission vessels, projects, and equipment providers. Zero
emission vessels often have higher up front capital costs, but lower
operating costs and therefore lower total cost of ownership than
conventional diesel systems. Government investment in research and
development can help lower those costs. As such, we recommend
supporting and expanding programs like the Maritime Education and
Technical Assistance (META) Program. The Federal Transit
Administration's Ferry Grant Program should be expanded and could
include a focus on zero emission technologies, just like the Transit
Bus ``No/Lo'' program. We also suggest exploring establishing a low-
interest loan program to cover the incremental capital cost of choosing
a zero emissions technology.
4. USCG Marine Safety Center. The Coast Guard's Marine Safety
Center (MSC) is faced with the challenge of ensuring the safety of
vessels, regardless of propulsion technology. As lithium ion batteries,
fuel cells, hydrogen, and other new technologies become commercially
available, the MSC is tasked with updating the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) to address these new technologies. This will require
time and resources. ABB is prepared to support MSC in this role and
asks the Committee to do the same.
5. Invest in Research and Development. While there are
commercially available zero emission solutions available today for some
marine segments, others still require significant research and
development, particularly in the area of fuel-cells, advanced battery
chemistries, and advanced net-zero fuels. Through the US Coast Guard's
Research Development Test and Evaluation Program, the Department of
Energy, and MARAD's META Program, the Committee could encourage
development of a zero emissions ship research and development program.
6. Help solve shore charging. As vessels like ferries electrify,
electric utilities are faced with high power loads during recharge.
This can often trigger demand charges which can significantly challenge
the otherwise favorable economics to move to electric. Solutions like
shoreside energy storage systems are available to mitigate this cost,
though they can add cost and complexity to the project. The Committee
could also direct MARAD to invest in shoreside power through funding
mechanisms like the Port Infrastructure Development Grants.
7. Training. Support Maritime Academies and ensure labs and
curriculum include the latest technology. While alternating current
(AC) electrical systems remains a common standard on vessels, ships
powered by electric propulsion will be built using direct current (DC)
architecture. Training curriculum should be updated to address these
changes to how ships are powered.
References
Colton, T. (2019, January 6). Shipbuilding History. Retrieved from
http://www.shipbuildinghistory.com/statistics.htm
DNVGL. (2018). Energy Transition Outlook.
Mr. Maloney. Thank you.
Ms. Metcalf?
Ms. Metcalf. Yes. Perfectly said.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Metcalf. Good morning, Chairman Maloney, Ranking Member
Gibbs, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you very much for
allowing us to testify here. And this is not my testimony, but
I have to also be very proud, because I live in the western
suburbs of Philadelphia. I Amtrak down here every day. So it is
nice to see a friend of mine from Pennsylvania on the dais.
I am Kathy Metcalf, president and CEO of the Chamber of
Shipping of America, representing member companies who are
U.S.-based that own, operate, or charter a number of different
vessel types.
When I was first contacted about this hearing, the
indication was that it would be a green shipping hearing. And
so, over the holidays, I dutifully did some testimony, and then
I found out when I received the invitation that it was a little
bit more narrow, it was more towards carbon free, or zero
carbon.
But then I thought further, and when I noticed my good
friend, John Butler, and Lee Kindberg was going to sit and talk
about the specifics of the IMO plan, you are smart guys and
girls and you don't need to hear the same thing twice.
So I thought it might be helpful, since I was sitting
between you and lunch, to go up to about a 40,000-foot level
and talk about green shipping and sustainable shipping, because
the only environmental issue of importance to the maritime
industry is not just greenhouse gases, it is a multiple of
many, many issues. And most of them are linked together, kind
of like a spider web. You pull on one, you might undo another
one.
So what I have tried to do is--I noticed that Mr. Thoreau
once stated, ``it's not what you look at that matters, it's
what you see.'' I realize that we all have different
perceptions of what green shipping or sustainable shipping is.
And, in the simplest of terms, green shipping is a focus on
reducing the environmental profile of vessels. Sustainable
shipping is a much larger, broader issue that involves society,
human factors. And there is an excellent diagram in my
testimony from the European Union on this.
Global industry, 90 percent of our goods, are transported
by water. It is also the most environmentally friendly mode of
transportation. Now, why do I say that? Not because we
shouldn't be doing anything, but because we need to be sure
that the most environmentally friendly mode of transportation
remains and keeps its share. We cannot afford transmodal shifts
to less environmentally friendly forms of shipping.
So the regulatory framework--a couple of my colleagues have
already talked about this--it is critically important that
ships engaged in international trade have a set of robust,
enforceable regulations at the international level. We are
never going to get rid of national and sometimes subnational
regulations around the world. But to maximize the efficiency
and the environmental benefit of regulation, that consistency
needs to be maintained at the IMO level.
I am not going to waste your time, as I mentioned, talking
about the path to a carbon-free maritime industry; John and Lee
and others have done that quite well. But I would say that
exactly what they said we totally support; the need for R&D is
critical.
In my testimony I have included a few summaries of a number
of environmental issues: air emissions, not just greenhouse
gases, but the more conventional pollutants that the industry
has been working on; discharges to the water, including ballast
water--thank you for passing VIDA. It is really--after, I
think, 12 years on my part, it was a welcome addition to see
that we are going to finally get a set of consistent
regulations that govern those discharges.
Biofouling, hull husbandry, critical. A clean hull is a
happy hull, is a more efficient hull, which means you have
better fuel efficiency, less emissions per ton-mile.
Marine plastics. This is going to be hot, the hot part is
the single-use plastics. We are seeing it already,
internationally. Two countries in particular have banned the
use of single-use plastics.
Ship recycling, another important one.
And we talked about it before the hearing, protection of
marine resources, and noise.
What I would say in closing, Mr. Chairman and Members, a
Chinese philosopher once said, ``A journey of a thousand miles
begins with a single step.'' Nothing could be truer for the
global maritime industry at this point in time. But we have to
understand that it is a transitional period as we approach
2050.
Thank you, and I am happy to answer any questions.
[Ms. Metcalf's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kathy Metcalf, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Chamber of Shipping of America
Good morning, Chairman Maloney, Ranking Member Gibbs and Members of
the Subcommittee. We appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony at
this hearing to discuss paths to a carbon-free maritime industry as
well as the more general concepts of green and sustainable shipping.
Mister Chairman, we respectfully request that our testimony be
entered into the record for this hearing.
I am Kathy Metcalf, President and CEO of the Chamber of Shipping of
America (CSA). CSA represents member companies which are U.S. based
that own, operate or charter both US and non-US flag oceangoing
tankers, container ships, and other merchant vessels engaged in both
the domestic and international trades. Through CSA's long time
participation in various national and international organizations,
including the International Maritime Organization (IMO), our members
are actively supporting a number of initiatives which will advance the
concepts of green shipping and sustainable shipping in the global
maritime industry including those leading toward a carbon-free maritime
industry.
What is Green Shipping/Sustainable Shipping?
Henry David Thoreau once stated ``It's not what you look at that
matters, it's what you see.'' Taking into account this simple statement
on perspective as it applies to defining green and/or sustainable
shipping provides the reason that a detailed internet search results in
a myriad of definitions for these terms. Some view green and
sustainable shipping as interchangeable terms. CSA and others, view
green shipping as a subset of sustainable shipping.
In the simplest of terms, green shipping is a process by which the
environmental footprint of the marine industry is reduced subject to
the principle of continuous improvement. It is not about one specific
environmental impact but rather all the environmental impacts
associated with vessel and port operations. A good case in point is the
current focus on greenhouse gases (GHGs). Many speak of green shipping
within the context of climate change and the reductions of GHGs, but in
fact green shipping is much broader than that and represents an
overarching concept that relates to all types of environmental impacts
including air emissions, discharges to the water, impacts on living
marine resources to name a few.
Sustainable shipping is an even broader and arguably more important
concept defined most often as a holistic management concept for
sustainable development incorporating environmental and social
responsibility and includes the three co-equal pillars of environment,
society and economy. Sustainable shipping incorporates these three in a
continuous loop of design, construction, operation and recycling
principles with supporting principles of regulation, socio-economic,
market related and human factor issues. Reproduced below from the
European Maritime Safety Agency website is an informative graphic
describing the multiple interfaces which comprise sustainable shipping.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Because of the many different stakeholders which are involved in
the process, one of the most critical factors in the advancement of
sustainable shipping principles, is the need for constructive
dialogues, partnerships and the development of synergies to fully take
into account the wide range of perspectives of all parties including
their concerns, needs and expectations. Although a daunting challenge,
it is only with consideration of these many stakeholders and their
perspectives that sustainable shipping can be successfully implemented
to the benefit of all. Sustainable shipping is not a project with a
clearly defined time line, but rather is a continuous voyage with goals
changing over time in an ever evolving world.
The Global Maritime Industry and Its Regulatory Framework
Approximately 90% of world trade is transported by ships, including
raw materials, energy, food, as well as manufactured goods and
products. Global shipping is the main facilitator of international
trade and is obviously of vital importance to the global economy.
Global shipping is also the most environmentally friendly mode of
transportation. As an example, according to the IMO GHG Study (2009),
oceangoing vessels produce on average 5.6 grams of CO2 per ton-
kilometer compared to 80 for trucks and 435 for aircraft. Similar
benefits of global shipping are also observed in the areas of safety
(fatalities per million ton-miles) and fuel efficiency (ton-miles per
gallon). The relevance of these facts is key to the conclusion that
global shipping is critical to both economic and environmental
sustainability when compared to other transportation modes. This also
leads to a further conclusion that any regulatory changes to the
current environmental regulations at both the international and
national levels should not impair the critical role global shipping
plays in the global economy and should not result in the transfer of
cargo to other less environmentally friendly modes of transportation.
This is not a justification for lack of action as regards green
shipping initiatives, but rather is a call for acknowledgment of these
sensitivities as future regulatory requirements are considered and
adopted at all levels of governance and ensures any actions taken
relative to shipping do not result in cross media transfers or cross
modal transfers to less friendly modes of transportation.
The regulatory framework which governs the global shipping industry
is complex. The IMO creates new environmental requirements which are
agreed to by IMO member states and then implemented at the national
level. In some cases, national and sub-national requirements are
imposed which are different than or more stringent than those adopted
by the IMO. In these cases, vessels calling in a particular port are
faced with a patchwork quilt of requirements making compliance a
challenge at best. In our view, because shipping is global, so also
should be the environmental regulations which apply to global shipping.
Fuel sulfur requirements are a relevant case study. At one point in
time, vessels trading to California were subject to CARB fuel sulfur
requirements, the US Emission Control Area requirements and the IMO
fuel sulfur requirements. Fortunately as time has passed, these three
sets of requirements have moved closer together in content.
Illustrative in this example is the fact that many IMO treaties contain
provisions for national programs where more stringency is deemed
necessary such being the case with the US request for an IMO approved
emission control area for North America and the Caribbean. The point of
this conversation is that global shipping, the marine environment and
society benefit from a robust set of international requirements that
apply to vessels regardless of the areas to which they trade. It is
within this context that the concepts of green shipping and sustainable
shipping should be discussed and agreed so that one set of requirements
are applicable to all vessels regardless of flag or location.
The Path to a Carbon-Free Maritime Industry
The path to a carbon-free maritime industry is related to the
reduction of GHG emissions from vessels. IMO has adopted its GHG
reduction strategy with current discussions focusing on the
identification of short, medium and long term measures which will allow
the global shipping industry to gradually reduce or eliminate its CO2
emissions. The IMO Strategy establishes ambitious targets including the
phase-out of GHG emissions ``as soon as possible this century'' and
reducing annual GHG emissions from international shipping by at least
50% by 2050 compared to the 2008 baseline. This is quite likely the
most important and impacting initiative ever applied to the global
shipping industry and will require the development of new vessel design
and propulsion technologies as well as zero carbon or carbon neutral
fuels.
So what is the path to a carbon-free, or at least carbon neutral,
maritime industry? In our view, the most critical first step to making
progress on this initiative is the development of a robust global
research and development program, a program which is, in fact, being
proposed by the global maritime industry at the next meeting of the IMO
Marine Environment Protection Committee in the spring of 2020. Key
elements of this proposal include the establishment of a new research
and development organization to pave the way for the decarbonization of
shipping, core funding from shipping companies across the world of
about USD 5 billion over a 10 year period and the acceleration of the
design and construction of commercially viable zero carbon-emission
ships by the early 2030's. Reaching these reduction goals will require
the deployment of new zero-carbon technologies and propulsion systems
such as green hydrogen and ammonia, fuel cells, batteries and synthetic
fuels produced from renewable energy sources. These fuels do not yet
exist in a form or scale that can be applied to large commercial ships,
especially those engaged in transoceanic voyages and which are
currently dependent on fossil fuels. Some have questioned why the
global maritime industry cannot conduct these R&D efforts in a private
setting. It is important to understand that the global shipping
industry is comprised of tens of thousands of companies located in over
a hundred countries. Creation of this mandatory R&D contribution
mechanism is critical to ensure a level playing field exists as well as
ensuring that the necessary funding to support these initiatives is
shared across the global industry, is maintained at sufficient levels
and the results of the R&D efforts are shared across the global
maritime industry.
As indicated above, the creation of this global R&D initiative is
only the first step in the long and likely never ending path to a
carbon free maritime industry. The MEPC through its GHG working group
is addressing a number of other issues the resolution of which are
critical to a successful outcome. In broad terms, these issues include
discussions around how and to what degree existing technical and
operational programs can be improved, developing procedures for
assessing the impacts of mandatory measures on IMO member states, and
development of cooperative efforts with ports and other land-based
stakeholders throughout the entire logistics chain.
Specific short term measures being discussed include improvements
to the existing energy efficiency requirements (Energy Efficiency
Design Index (EEDI), Ship's Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP)),
development of technical and operational energy efficiency measures for
both new and existing ships, analysis of the use of speed optimization,
consideration of methane emissions, development of national action
plans, enhancement of technical cooperation and capacity building,
encouragement of logistics chain wide collaborative efforts and others.
Mid-term and long-term measures include further refinement of the short
term measures noted above, the development, implementation and
provision of zero-carbon or fossil-free fuels including land-based
manufacturing and distribution systems, and the identification and
development of new/innovative emission reduction mechanisms.
Other (equally important) Environmental Issues Related to the
Advancement of Green and Sustainable Shipping Concepts
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
As some of my fellow witnesses have likely experienced, we are
often asked to identify and discuss the top 5 or top 10 environmental
issues facing our industry. As illustrated above, this is a near
impossibility as at any given point in time, we are working on at least
20 environmental issues, each with different priorities over time and
at various stages of analysis. The illustration above provides an
example of the number of issues with which we deal on an everyday
basis. It is also important to appreciate that initiatives that address
one of these issues, may result in positive or negative impacts of
others. Short summaries of the key issues are found below.
Air Emissions
There are two distinct sub-topics relative to air emissions. The
first relates to the reduction of GHG emissions from vessels which is
discussed above. The second relates to the reduction of traditional
pollutants from vessels including SOx, NOx and particulate matter at
both the international and US domestic levels. IMO and the US are
addressing these issues by further tightening requirements for engine
design, the imposition of fuel sulfur requirements within ECAs as well
as the imposition of the recent global sulfur cap of 0.5% for vessels
operating in areas outside of ECAs. Related to this issue is the topic
of alternative control strategies which includes the installation and
use of exhaust gas scrubbers in lieu of low sulfur fuel. IMO regulates
this issue under Annex VI of the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).
Discharges to the Water
Issues within this subject matter being addressed at both
international and US domestic levels include ballast water discharges,
bilgewater/oily water separator effluent, exhaust gas scrubber
washwater discharge, graywater and anti-fouling coatings/leachate,
sewage and garbage as well as discharges/releases associated with a
marine casualty. At the international level, these issues are discussed
under separate initiatives within the Marine Environment Protection
Committee under the provisions of the 6 annexes of MARPOL and separate
stand-alone conventions addressing ballast water management, anti-
fouling systems, and oil pollution preparedness, response and
cooperation (conventional oils as well as hazardous and noxious
substances).
In the US, 27 discharges to the water, including those noted above,
are currently covered by the Vessel General Permit issued by EPA and
the Oil Pollution Act (marine spill prevention, readiness and
response). As you are aware, in December 2018, the President signed the
``Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018,'' which
included the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (VIDA). After literally
decades of collaborative efforts among Members of Congress, the
industry and environmental groups, the enactment of these provisions
were welcomed by the industry and will provide for a clear and
comprehensive set of regulations governing discharges incidental to the
normal operation of vessels. We have been informed that EPA is close to
finalizing its proposed regulations as mandated by VIDA and we expect
them to publish a proposed rule in the January/February 2020 timeframe.
These regulations are required to be finalized by December 2020 at
which time the USCG will develop their companion regulations which are
required to be finalized by December 2022. Most importantly to this
discussion of sustainable shipping is the recognition that both the
international requirements and the US domestic requirements are under
continuous review and as technology and best practices develop over
time, are subject to change with due regard to the need for continuous
improvement.
Biofouling/Hull Husbandry
Hull biofouling/husbandry is an issue critical to the improvement
of vessel energy efficiency as well as the prevention of the transfer
of aquatic nuisance species. As regards the energy efficiency aspect,
accumulation of marine species on the hull and in niche areas, creates
additional drag which reduces fuel efficiency and negatively impacts
air emissions issues identified above. As regards aquatic nuisance
species, studies suggest that, at least in some areas, hull fouling
contributes to the transfers of aquatic nuisance species more than
ballast water discharges. Given the cross media scope (air and water)
of positive impacts associated with good hull husbandry practices, the
global marine industry embraces best management practices so that these
environmental benefits can be maximized. An issue directly related to
biofouling is the proper selection and use of anti-foulant hull
coatings. While there are a number of coating types, current
discussions are focused on the leachate which naturally occurs from
metal based components of the coating. Tributyltin was phased out a
number of years ago with the adoption of the IMO Antifouling Convention
and US regulations banning its use. The current discussion focuses on
copper based coatings and what impact their use may have on the marine
environment in large part due to initiatives within the European Union.
The industry is in constant discussions with coating manufacturers to
assess what new coatings are being development with due regard for the
reduction of their environmental impacts.
Marine Plastics
Currently the issue of marine plastics use and disposal is
regulated under MARPOL Annex V (Garbage), national and, in some cases,
subnational regulations. As is the case with all MARPOL annexes, Annex
V is under continuous review by the Marine Environment Protection
Committee (MEPC) and has recently been amended to update the criteria
for determining whether cargo residues are harmful to the marine
environment and a new Garbage Record Book format which includes a new
garbage category for e-waste. MARPOL Annex V explicitly prohibits the
discharge of plastics at sea and requires disposal to shore reception
facilities. A new topic which has recently arisen is the subject of
single-use plastics. It is expected that MEPC will take up this issue
due to at least two national laws (India, Kuwait) that seek to ban the
use and disposal of single-use plastics in their waters and ports. The
imposition of this ban is in violation of these countries obligations
under MARPOL Annex V which requires that adequate reception facilities
be available in their ports. Further complicating this issue is the
fact that vessels can only purchase ship stores from ship chandlers
based on the inventory of those chandlers and few, if any, provide the
ability to purchase multi-use plastics or acceptable alternatives to
single-use plastics for use onboard vessels. While the industry
supports waste minimization concepts, including the use of multi-use
plastics, any prohibitions on the use of single-use plastics must
necessarily take into account the availability of alternatives
(including multi-use plastics), a discussion best left to resolution at
the IMO MEPC.
It should be noted that a substantial fraction of marine plastic
debris in the ocean originates from land-based sources and rivers and
are related to the mismanaged plastic waste generated from land-based
sources along these rivers. The 10 top-ranked rivers transport 88-95%
of the global load in the ocean (Export of Plastic Debris by Rivers
into the Sea, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, October 11, 2017).
Ship Recycling
International requirements for environmentally responsible ship
recycling is a decades long discussion which resulted in the IMO Hong
Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound
Recycling of Ships (2009). The Convention was agreed in 2009 but has
yet to enter into force due to low ratification rates by IMO member
states. The Convention is aimed at ensuring that ships, when being
recycled after reaching the end of their operational lives, do not pose
any unnecessary risks to human health, safety and to the environment.
The Convention intends to address all the issues around ship recycling,
including the fact that ships sold for scrapping may contain
environmentally hazardous substances such as asbestos, heavy metals,
hydrocarbons, ozone-depleting substances and others. It also addresses
concerns raised about the working and environmental conditions at many
of the world's ship recycling locations. Ship recycling is also
addressed in the European Union Ship Recycling Directive as well as
under national laws. It is hoped that regional and national
requirements for ship recycling will become aligned with the provisions
of the Convention when it receives sufficient ratifications to enter
into force.
Protection of Living Marine Resources including Noise from Commercial
Shipping
The impacts of all ocean users, including shipping, is an active
point of discussion in a number of organizations with current
activities focused on determining the impacts of these activities on
living marine resources. Two specific issues related to global shipping
have received much attention at international and national levels. The
first issue relates to ship strikes of large marine mammals and
discussions are ongoing as to how governments and the industry can
minimize the likelihood of vessels striking marine mammals. This issue
is challenging when taking into account that large marine mammal
populations are subject to annual migration patterns and the fact that
most large marine mammals are not usually visible to the eye of the
navigation officer that is controlling the movements of a vessel. IMO
efforts thus far have resulted in the creation of guidelines for
minimizing the risk of ship strikes with cetaceans (2009). US efforts
thus far include programs focusing on the reduction of ship strikes of
the North Atlantic Right Whale (East Coast of the US) and multiple
whale species off the coast of California.
The second issue relates to the underwater noise generated by the
movement of vessels through the water. Over 85% of the underwater
radiated noise from a given vessel is a result of propeller cavitation
and much work is being done to identify solutions related to the design
and construction of vessels as well possible operational changes which
could reduce the underwater radiated noise. While IMO has produced
guidelines on the reduction of underwater noise (2014), it is expected
that at least one IMO member state will propose the addition of this
issue to the MEPC work plan for future discussion and potentially the
development of mandatory provisions.
Conclusion
Global marine transportation is vital to the world's economy,
moving a vast majority of goods and bulk materials to the world's
population in the most environmentally responsible manner of all
transportation modes. Notwithstanding, the importance of to the global
economy, it is recognized that the environmental footprint of shipping
should, and is being continuously reduced, by the initiatives described
above. The global industry, through its work at IMO, supports these and
future initiatives which will reflect our continuous improvement on
environmental issues. CSA is also proud to continue to work with
executive branch agencies in the US to address these issues at the
national level.
Ralph Waldo Emerson once said ``Life is a journey, not a
destination''. A Chinese philosopher once said ``A journey of a
thousand miles begins with a single step''. Nothing could be truer for
the global maritime industry and its march toward sustainable shipping.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this hearing. We would
be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Maloney. Thank you, Ms. Metcalf. We will now proceed to
the Members' questioning, following the 5-minute rule. I will
begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
I have the great honor of representing the Hudson Valley of
New York, which was named after Henry Hudson, of course, who
sailed up the Hudson River in 1609, September 1609, and
actually camped in a little spot--you can see it from my back
yard--called Con Hook, about 40 miles up the river, September
14th, 1609. And he, of course, began a process of using that
river and so much of our water infrastructure to move goods and
services, conduct discovery, and create the American economy.
And this was all done by wind.
And so what is interesting to me is the role that wind
power may play in maritime shipping. It is not exactly a new
idea, but can you comment on the role that wind-powered vessels
may play in helping us achieve some of the goals we are
discussing today?
It is for any member of the panel.
Mr. Bryn. Thank, Mr. Chairman. ABB does not, I don't
believe, directly play in this space, currently. But there is--
there have been--I would point to two interesting technologies,
one of which are sort of kites and sail technology. There are
some challenges there that I am probably not in a position to
speak to. But there are some technologies there.
There has also been--for the first time we have seen
commercial deployment of an idea called a Flettner rotor, kind
of these tall columns that spin and kind of generate lift and
actually help pull the ship along. So it is an interesting
technology, and worth a look at, if you are not familiar with
it.
Mr. Butler. Mr. Chairman, just to add to that, my
expectation is that, at the end of the day, we will see more
contribution from wind power on land to create green processes
for future fuels. In other words, if you are producing
hydrogen, you need to do it in such a way that you are using
carbon-free electricity, right?
So my guess is, at the end of the day, while some of these
technologies can--well, shipboard technologies can contribute
to efficiency on the water, the biggest impact from wind is
going to be in producing fuels on land that are then carried by
vessels.
Mr. Maloney. And building off of that, I am interested in
your remark, Mr. Butler, but anyone feel free to answer, that
there is a technological layer, or an incentive layer that is
going to be required to move to zero emissions past the 2050/
50-percent reduction benchmark you mentioned. Could you
elaborate on that?
And what kind of incentives and assistance is the industry
going to need to make that goal of zero emissions attainable in
time to do us some good?
Mr. Butler. So, I mean, the basic premise is no matter how
efficient you make a diesel engine, you are still burning
diesel, and you are still creating carbon dioxide as a
combustion byproduct. So if we are going to get to zero
emissions, we simply have to have a different propulsion
mechanism using a different fuel, different technologies, and
having a different emissions profile.
So the single most important thing that we can do right now
is to create and develop for commercial application those new
technologies. We don't know what they are right now, there are
candidates. We have talked about hydrogen. People have talked
about ammonia, and using hydrogen either as direct burn or in
fuel cells. But there are tremendous engineering questions with
respect to the production of those fuels, the handling of those
fuels, and the safe use of those fuels on board.
So, you know, there are lots of discussions going on in
various places about how you push people to adopt new
technologies, carbon pricing, and this sort of thing, more
regulations. The fact of the matter is, unless that pathway
exists, you can flog people all day long, but if they have no
place to go, the change won't happen. And that is why we are so
focused on the research and development piece.
Mr. Maloney. And let's talk about the shoreside
infrastructure. What could we do in that regard to make the
decarbonization of that, of the import process, come about more
quickly?
Mr. Butler. Well, there is the--you know, you have to do
things in the proper order. Before you start talking about
investing in shoreside infrastructure, you need to know what
fuels and propulsion systems you are trying to support on the
ships. Right?
So it is all of a piece, but I think you would risk
stranding a lot of investment, or making the wrong investments
if you jumped too quickly into picking a particular shoreside
infrastructure before you know what the end goal is. So I think
a lot of what can be productively done by Government is to
assist in figuring out what the right order is, and supporting
it, each phase of that process, you know, the thing that has to
happen next, before you can get to the next phase.
Mr. Maloney. Ms. Metcalf, and my time is expired, I will
yield to Mr. Gibbs, but if you want to say a word on that----
Ms. Metcalf. I just wanted to add one thing, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
There is no doubt that ports and shipping are going to have
to work together, and we need to start now, and we actually
have started talking. John put it well, saying that the order
of things is the most important.
But the one thing--and I will cite the American Bureau of
Shipping classification society and DNV GL classification
society have done a number of studies. The DNV GL,
particularly, I would recommend. It is called the Energy
Outlook 2050, and there is a great chapter in there on
transitional fuels.
So the key--and my point in intervening here--is we don't
go from traditional marine fuels now to zero fuels. There are
transitional fuels--fuels such as LNG is a good example--that
we need to be able to build the infrastructure ashore, so that
the new LNG-fueled ships are able to use that fuel, instead of
having to go back to conventional. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. Again, I think you make a good point
about the transition fuels.
I want to ask Dr. Kindberg. I have seen those big
containerships. What is the average age in your fleet? When you
put a ship on, how long do you expect it to be in service?
Ms. Kindberg. The life expectancy of those ships is 20 to
25 years, but the average age of our fleet is somewhere around
the 7-year mark.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. So the transition is a huge deal.
Ms. Kindberg. Oh, yes. It is a big deal.
Mr. Gibbs. Are you looking at--are any of your ships fueled
with LNG or not?
Ms. Kindberg. We do not currently have any ships that are
fueled with LNG. A couple of our competitors have one or two.
But it is definitely a bridge fuel that there does need to be
infrastructure for. Just like for biofuels, there will need to
be infrastructure.
And we think biofuels will be perhaps another bridge fuel,
but perhaps a long-term fuel, because with biofuels you take
the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to grow the plants.
Then you make that into fuel and you burn it immediately. So
there is no new carbon dioxide. Whereas, if you take it out of
the ground as a petrochemical, you are actually adding new
carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. So there is a difference, and
biofuels will absolutely be part of this blend. But we have to
do that intelligently, too----
Mr. Gibbs. LNG also, I believe, when it comes to
particulate matter, is zero emissions on oxide, sulfur oxide
and nitrous oxide. It is close to a 100-percent reduction in
emissions, and probably is, what, 40-percent reduction in
greenhouse gases?
Ms. Kindberg. I don't know that number off the top of my
head.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Berger, I understand that the Governor of
Washington has come out in opposition to building a new LNG
fueling facility in Tacoma. When we talk about transition, is
the Governor of Washington State more inclined to just wait
until new technology comes, maybe two, three, four decades
away, and not look at a transition fuel like LNG?
Mr. Berger. Thank you, Ranking Member. So I understand that
many in this sector investing in LNG and infrastructure to meet
immediate timelines, particularly in the IMO and--in Washington
State, Governor Inslee wants to focus on zero-emission
solutions.
My role is to be a liaison and facilitator. Washington
Maritime Blue is a member-based organization that is set up to
support each of its member goals. The commitment it makes is to
be a convener around some of those difficult questions in a
thoughtful dialogue.
Another example like that is automation. These are tough
questions that we need to have as we make major transitions
across the industry. And as a cluster, if we are able to bring
together all those multiple stakeholders to work on a common
vision and how we get to sustainability, how we get to zero
emission, we need to figure out ways to address those difficult
questions. And as a cluster organization we are able to
facilitate that.
As long as we are making decisions that are based on
science, and seek to balance those three prongs that we are
helping to grow our maritime sector, we are making healthy
decisions for our ocean and marine ecosystems, and----
Mr. Gibbs. And also looking----
Mr. Berger [continuing]. Communities.
Mr. Gibbs. [continuing]. At those decisions. Have you
factored in the economics? Because we don't want to put our
companies, our shippers in a very disadvantaged competitive
position, compared to the competitors elsewhere. Is that a
factor?
Mr. Berger. Yes. Keeping a viable, economically viable and
forward-thinking innovation sector is absolutely a factor.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Bryn at ABB, the technology for batteries--
in your testimony--from the last several years has just
exponentially improved. When you talk about your ships that are
ferrying across the waterways, recharging them in 7 minutes,
and I know you got the--working out there in Washington State--
I believe it is Washington State--with a huge megawatt--
recharging in, like, 15 minutes. We are talking about 15
megawatts, right?
Mr. Bryn. Correct, yes.
Mr. Gibbs. Have you guys done any research or studies? You
know, obviously, that would be a zero-emission vehicle, vessel,
OK? But are we just moving one emission from here to there?
Because the generation to generate that kind of megawatts--has
anybody looked at that situation, so we are just not moving
emissions from here to there, and not really addressing a net
reduction?
Mr. Bryn. Yes, absolutely. I appreciate the question, and
it is a very good one. It comes up often.
One thing I would like to point to--I am looking through
our written testimony here--figure 7 shows an example of a
study that we have done for a typical ferry, and it shows the
estimated CO2 impact of different design decisions.
So you are absolutely right, and I sort of look at this as
sort of a two-phase process. The first is does it help with
emissions today, and does it help with emissions long term?
And what I mean by that is if we are, for example, going
for an electric ferry, the immediate impact will be whatever
the CO2 and other emissions of the grid are. How does that
compare to a diesel engine? And what we find is, even in the
most conservative case, where you are getting all of your
power, for example, from coal, the electric vessel does tend to
be lower carbon and lower on a lot of other pollutants than the
diesel equivalent. And it is because the coal plant can do a
lot of waste heat recovery and after-treatment, things like
that.
So, in the short term, the answer is almost always yes. And
that is, like I said, the most conservative case. If you are
getting your power from hydropower or gas or something, it
would be improved.
In the long term I think we also have to recognize that the
grid continues to clean itself up. And so we would like to get
this technology deployed in parallel, so that, as the grid
cleans itself up, we also have an----
Mr. Gibbs. I am out of time. Just one quick comment.
Mr. Bryn. Sure.
Mr. Gibbs. The infrastructure of the grid and our base
generation capacity to do what you are talking about, because
you are talking about recharging a vessel, one vessel, 15
megawatts. I mean I can just see the powerplant going--you
know, melt down. But the challenge is there.
Mr. Bryn. Thank you. Yes, it is a challenge. We are working
with utility partners to make sure that is feasible.
I should be clear. For the Washington State Ferries project
we are not currently selected for that. We are hopeful to be,
but that has still not been decided yet. So I just wanted to be
clear, we are not a partner on that yet. Hopefully.
Mr. Maloney. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Larsen?
Mr. Larsen. Thank you.
First off, I want to thank the ranking member for his
concern about issues in my State. I appreciate that.
Second, Mr. Berger, on the electric ferries, can you--first
off, thanks for being out here and testifying. What is the cost
of the transition to electric ferries? This is a retrofit and
not a new build, is that correct?
Mr. Berger. Thank you, Congressman. So we actually have
both going on at the same time. We are both retrofitting what
we call our Jumbo Mark IIs, starting with the first vessel,
which will be coming out of the water soon--that is now under
contract--as well as a new-build construction. The State
legislature has paid for the first, a series of five new-build
constructions. So it is a retrofit to a hybrid electric, as
well as new builds.
The new-build vessels, we are looking at about $15 to $20
million more, upfront costs, which would also be inclusive of
the shoreside charging mechanisms that need to be. It is very
similar, almost same design as the previous Olympic-class
vessels, but with new propulsion systems.
Mr. Larsen. And then the anticipated life-cycle costs
relative to a new-build diesel?
Mr. Berger. Well, when we were looking at the battery
technology, we are slating for--Mr. Bryn might be able to
answer this, because he is putting the bid together for it, but
I think----
Mr. Larsen. I won't ask him that----
Mr. Berger [continuing]. The batteries were about 5 to 8
years. We are bringing that cost comparison right now.
Mr. Larsen. Oh, you are? OK.
Mr. Berger. As we look at some of those key challenges when
we are talking about particularly kind of this both/and
approach, and making sure that we are paying attention to the
entire system, yes, we need to be looking at that grid at the
same time.
We are very fortunate Washington State makes this a great
place to start building and proliferating this kind of
technology, because we have some of the cleanest and cheapest
power in the United States. And so it is a great place for us
to build on these vessels, to make the ROI come back right in
less than 10 years, if not sooner.
But the attention and the investments that need to be made
to kind of build smart grids and have the grid capacity to
support charging up to 10 megawatts of these vessels is also
critical, as well as we look at other technologies, like energy
storage onshore in order to kind of take care of the peak
shaving on the grid. All that is under consideration, and we
need to invest in it.
Mr. Larsen. So in the--in testimony from--a few of you have
talked about the relative ease of passenger vessel
implementation here, because you have set schedules and so on.
The State, our State, has a larger system, but they are a
smaller, county-based system. Specifically Skagit County, as
you know, the Guemes Island Ferry. They just need one ferry to
replace. And they are trying to move forward on getting an
electric ferry for that.
Is that something the State does support, or do you have
ideas about how these smaller systems can fit into a larger
maritime blue strategy?
Mr. Berger. You are exactly right, Congressman. You know,
so smaller ferries, both in our county system as well as when
we are taking into account the growth of a high-speed passenger
ferry fleet--as population growth across western Washington is
so astronomical, there is more and more look at bringing that
mosquito fleet back--there are lots of mechanisms in place
within the State, and we are looking for others, as well.
We have our clean energy fund, we also have the opportunity
to bring in some private investment, right. As we start talking
about those opportunities for operational savings, it starts to
make sense to bring some private investment into some of those
projects.
Of course, each of those ferries look for both that kind of
hybrid stack of capital, they are looking at opportunities for
various different Federal funds, State funds, and private
dollars. All that is necessary. What we are fortunate to do is
now have a mechanism in place to help support those type of
projects, go out and seek, and then receive those various
different types of funding into a particular project. And the
cluster organization is there to help support that.
Mr. Larsen. Thanks.
Dr. Kindberg, our U.S. Navy has a lot of ships, but there
are a few ships that are hybrid. And the idea is that, when
they are underway, they can switch to an electric drive, so--
because they are just going in a straight line, they don't
really need to be doing anything much else. But when they are
getting in--out of port and into port, they need to have a
little more maneuverability, a little more control, and so on.
So I am wondering if, looking at the larger oceangoing
vessels, if that is an option, or are we looking at one
propulsion system, one kind of propulsion system, or a hybrid
system for the 2030 or even the 2050 timeframe.
Ms. Kindberg. No, I am not really familiar with what the
U.S. Navy might define as a hybrid.
Mr. Larsen. Sure. All right. Well, answer my question,
then. What are you looking at?
Ms. Kindberg. What are we looking at? We are certainly
looking at batteries, we are looking at new fuels. But we have
also added waste heat recovery. We have changed out propellers
to be much more energy efficient. We have changed out bulbous
bows. We actually give the vessels a nose job. You cut off that
bulbous bow and weld on a new one, so that it is more energy
efficient at today's speeds. And then, of course, you have all
heard of slow steaming. And then we have got new, larger, more
energy-efficient vessels per container.
So those are all different approaches that we have taken to
try to push this forward and achieve that 42-percent reduction
that we have achieved so far.
Now we are going into new technologies, what we call the
connected vessel strategy, so that Big Brother actually is
watching all of those ships, and monitoring all of the
different engineering sensors, and making sure that we are
squeezing that last bit of energy out of what is on the vessel.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Maloney. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Weber?
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope we get a second
round. I have got three pages of questions.
Mr. Butler, you talked in your comments about a 2030 goal,
a 2050 goal, and going forward. And has there been any thought
to nuclear, and just powering these ships that would be
nuclear?
Mr. Butler. Well, that has been a debate, sir, that has
been going on for years. My personal take on that is that the
politics of that are going to prevent it from ever being a
widespread solution for----
Mr. Weber. It hasn't prevented it thus far, has it?
Mr. Butler. Well, for the commercial fleet----
Mr. Weber. That is a joke, Mr. Butler; of course it has.
Thank you.
Well, let me move on. So the focus is away from fossil
fuels, although I am hearing Dr. Kindberg talk about--was it
cooking oil as a substitute? What were you calling that?
Ms. Kindberg. That fuel is actually pretty limited in
availability, because it is actually made from used cooking oil
that is collected in Europe.
Mr. Weber. Right. Well, you want to talk about needing
infrastructure, OMG, you really need infrastructure there to
collect all that.
Are we really talking about just completely doing away
with--is Maersk thinking they're just completely doing away
with combustion engines?
Ms. Kindberg. One of the early moves that we will make will
be biofuels, and that is why I mentioned it, again, earlier.
Because, again, biofuels are considered renewable, and that
carbon, when you do the carbon accounting, doesn't count,
because it is taken out of the atmosphere and returned quickly
back to the atmosphere.
Mr. Weber. OK. If you do biofuels, again, you are still
back to an infrastructure need. Correct?
Ms. Kindberg. Yes, sir.
Mr. Weber. How do biofuels compare, for example, to--I will
use LNG. We will move off of diesel. Hopefully that is our
goal, here. How do biofuels compare to an LNG-powered vessel?
Ms. Kindberg. Biofuels is a broad category. There could be
bio-LNGs that could be derived from biological sources, but
would still need the infrastructure to be delivered to the
vessel.
Mr. Weber. Well, if you are talking about liquified natural
gas, now you are talking about storage where you have got tanks
that are really, really cold, cryogenic storage. Now you are
talking about some really, really major--you know, I have five
ports in my district in the gulf coast of Texas. We do a lot of
energy. We export a lot of LNG, and so this is extremely
important that we are talking about it.
And I think you also said that an 80,000-horsepower engine
was most efficient. Can you--I am just trying to read my notes
here, I was scribbling quickly. What did you say about 80,000-
horsepower engines?
Ms. Kindberg. That was an example--our engines, unlike some
of the military ships, our vessels operate with one great, big
diesel engine.
Mr. Weber. OK.
Ms. Kindberg. And one big propeller. Some of the biggest
ships today do actually have two engines and two propellers.
But it is--we don't have some of the flexibilities or the costs
that the military has.
Mr. Weber. Right. Well, you know that submarines were dual-
powered, where they ran on batteries under water, of course,
and they would surface and recharge with diesel engines, their
batteries. Have you looked at kind of the dual set-up like
that?
Not necessarily diesel; it could be LNG or biofuels, or
whatever, and then batteries. Yes, ma'am?
Ms. Kindberg. Continue? Yes, thank you. We are looking at
batteries. As a matter of fact, we have got a battery being
shipped to a vessel right now for on-board testing. But there
are also concerns about risk assessments, in terms of large
batteries.
Mr. Weber. How does the size of that battery compare to,
say, a fuel tank, in terms of--you are going to use up cargo
space, right, if you have too big of a fuel tank, or too big of
a battery. How does a battery size compare to a fuel tank, do
you know?
Ms. Kindberg. Well, the battery we are going to be testing
is the size of a 40-foot container. So it is 40x8x9 feet. But
it is not going to be capable of moving the vessel. It is going
to be used for peak shaving
Mr. Weber. It is going to be used for what?
Ms. Kindberg. Taking off the peak when we need to generate
more power than the main engine is normally generating. So we
might have to start up an auxiliary generator.
Mr. Weber. OK.
Ms. Kindberg. We would use the battery instead.
Mr. Weber. You mean for, like, living quarters, or
operation of the ship?
Ms. Kindberg. A lot of our energy is used for pumps and
valves, but it is also used for refrigerated containers,
because there is a tremendous amount----
Mr. Weber. Oh, sure.
Ms. Kindberg [continuing]. Of refrigerated goods moved.
Mr. Weber. So that is interesting, because you could take a
couple of 40-foot 8x8 containers and have a pretty good energy
supply there.
And you are going to see if the battery lasts, is that what
your--because you know what the footprint is. Are you looking
for how powerful it is? What are you looking at?
Ms. Kindberg. Well, again, the battery that we are going to
be testing is not even capable of operating a vessel at--
alongside at shore for multiple days.
Mr. Weber. Yes, but how about it----
Ms. Kindberg. It is a first step.
Mr. Weber. How about the refrigerated units? How about
vessel lights and comfort? Will it do that?
I am not talking about powering the ship, but I am just
talking about running the living quarters, for example.
Ms. Kindberg. It could run part of them.
Mr. Weber. OK. Lots of questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Maloney. All right, thank you, Mr. Weber. Now to the
newest member of the subcommittee, who enjoys his own fan club
among the witnesses, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Lamb.
Mr. Lamb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, everyone. Thank you for coming. I would like to
shift the discussion a little bit towards vessels on our inland
waterways.
Western Pennsylvania, where I live and represent, has one
of the largest inland ports in our country in Pittsburgh, with
a lot of boats, mostly tugs and barges, on our three rivers.
And we were the beneficiaries of a very interesting Government
initiative a couple of years ago in which the U.S. Maritime
Administration made a $730,000 grant to the Pittsburgh Region
Clean Cities, which covered about half the cost of retrofitting
a single towboat to go from diesel to natural gas/diesel
combination.
So it was about a $1.4 million project, single boat, dual
fuel system. It decreased diesel by about 60 percent, overall.
And they have been monitoring ever since how it has been
working, but this is a boat that I think was built back in the
1940s, so it is a pretty old vessel that they were retrofitting
to do more work with.
So I think it sounds like a great idea. I am happy we did
it to demonstrate that it could work. And I guess my question
to the group is, hearing that, is that a good use of Government
investment dollars at that price, to be retrofitting these old
vessels? What are some other options in that category,
particularly as it relates to LNG?
Because I share some of my colleagues on the other side's
interest in using LNG more, especially what we produce in
western Pennsylvania. And I do think it could be what Ms.
Metcalf called a transition fuel here. But obviously, it is all
about price, retrofitting versus designing new engines that
would require LNG, as well.
So I know that is kind of a lot in there, but any thoughts
folks have on that?
It looked like Mr. Bryn and Ms. Metcalf both, so maybe we
could start on the end with the sole member of my fan club
there, and then move over. So----
Ms. Metcalf. I promise we will promote it, we will get you
some more members.
My opinion? And we do have some tug barge members. The
American Waterways Operators has a primary inland coverage.
Generally, what we find in large and small vessels, if you
are going to incorporate new technology, it is cheaper to do it
at new construction. Retrofitting--I think it is great they did
this project, but retrofitting a 40-year-old vessel just
doesn't make a whole lot of financial sense to me, other than
to see if it can be done.
Now, keep in mind, also, vessels on the Great Lakes are not
at that 20- to 25-year lifespan. They are--there are some of
them up there 50, 70 years old, I believe. OK, well, I am old,
too, but I don't want to get too old. So it is a different
marketplace up there, as well.
The other thing about alternative fuels on the Great Lakes,
or electricity, is that you have got shorter runs. You don't
have 5,000 miles of Pacific Ocean that you are having to
transit. You have got stops in between that you may be able to
integrate a shore-based infrastructure of fuels and/or
electricity that would be alternatives.
Mr. Lamb. Thank you.
Mr. Bryn?
Mr. Bryn. Thank you for the question, Congressman. Yes,
this is a topic that is sort of near and dear to our hearts. We
have been working with the inland industry, and the inland
towboats--it is a very interesting industry, and towboats come
in all flavors and sizes.
For example, there are what we call unit towboats that
might run from a refinery in Congressman Weber's district and
drop off some barges up in your area. It is a very, very
interesting system. We have unit towboats, there are linehaul
towboats, which push 40, 50 barges at a time on kind of a
regular liner service. There are shuttle boats that run up,
across the river.
My point is that, depending on the vessel's profile and
need and its service, the best solution can vary quite a bit.
And so, what we have found with a lot of boats is what is
common--if you take linehaul boats out of it and look at the
rest of the types of boats, a lot of them do a lot of time
actually sitting around. If it is a shuttle boat, they will be
sitting alongside a barge for hours, days on end sometimes.
When you get up into the locking river, where you all are, it
would be spending a lot of time going through the locks.
And anyway, at that low power, oftentimes these engines
need to still idle, because the crew still needs instant power
if, you know, in the event of an emergency or something.
And so, what we found is a diesel-electric arrangement,
while not zero emissions, can reduce engine running hours quite
a bit. And then, if you add a battery, you can also just shut
the engines off altogether, run off battery for a few hours. It
can save quite a bit of fuel, and it is--you know, it is just a
nicer environment for the folks on board, as well.
So there are solutions. The key is fitting the right
solution to the vessel. And that can work with LNG or diesel
fuel.
Mr. Lamb. Yes. I guess what I am asking is, you know,
within the Government we always--oh, and I am basically out of
time, so I will save that thought for next time and yield back
to the chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Maloney. I appreciate that. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Lowenthal?
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you all,
members of the panel.
As you know, I represent one of the largest port complexes
in North--well, the largest in North America in Long Beach/L.A.
So I am interested in something that we started a number of
years ago, or California started, and that is--I am going to
first ask Mr. Bryn--and that goes to your--in your
recommendations about solving the shore charging, and talking
about shore charging. I think that the rollout of shore
charging and shoreside power systems is vital to be moving in
this direction.
For example, in my community, as I mentioned, the L.A./Long
Beach, we have driven substantial reductions in localized
diesel emissions. And we are an area that is out of compliance,
so this was critically important, not only to move the
industry, but to protect our communities, which are--which--we
have this tremendous movement of goods in an area that is very
densely populated and ecologically tends to capture this
pollution and let it sit, unless we really try to prevent it.
So we have driven substantial reductions in localized
diesel emissions through investment in dockside power in a
State mandate for commercial vessels to use shore power. But we
know that the adoption of this technology has been lagging
across the country. And an EPA analysis in 2017, that found
that, outside of California, only a handful of ports have any
shore power capacity.
And you talked about also--Mr. Bryn--about possible grants.
And I know--if Congress made additional Federal grants or loan
funds available to install shore power infrastructure, do you
believe there is an interest at ports and terminals to adopt
this technology without a mandate?
And I want each--you know, we can start with Mr. Bryn, and
then we are going to ask Dr. Kindberg.
Mr. Bryn. Yes, thank you, Congressman. The Clean Air Action
Plan in California was certainly a model, and it was forward-
thinking, for sure. And it has led to a lot of the development.
We should be clear about shore charging. First of all,
there are a few flavors. One is to plug in vessels like
Maersk's when they arrive at the terminal to power the on-board
load while they are at port. The other flavor is to charge up,
like, a battery bank on a ferry or a tug in between voyages.
Both have their own challenges.
I would say, on the side which I think you are more
referring to, which is charging oceangoing vessels, there are
opportunities there. One of the challenges--well, I guess I
would say two challenges, generally. One is that many vessels,
especially older vessels, are not outfitted with the equipment.
So, you know, that needs to be an upgrade done on board.
The second challenges is that not all vessels are, let's
say, obviously suited to it. So, for example, a containership
or--a cruise ship is a perfect example. A cruise ship has an
electrified power system. A containership, most of the loads
that are happening on board are electric in nature, whether it
is running the reefer boxes or the onboard loads, pumps, things
like that. A bulker, though, doesn't have a lot of load when it
is in port. A crude oil tanker runs a steam pump to offload its
cargo.
So my point, again, just like before, is it depends. And
so, finding the right solution for the right vessel can be a
challenge. And that may be----
Mr. Lowenthal. But you could duplicate this not everywhere,
but certainly in certain ports. It could be more widespread.
Mr. Bryn. It certainly could be, but we would have to, as
an industry, look at making sure--there is standardization
already, making sure that is there, and making sure, you know,
that all new vessels are outfitted----
Mr. Lowenthal. Well, then I want to go to Dr. Kindberg, and
asking is the industry ready to convert to shore power.
In your testimony you did mention that Maersk uses cold
ironing in California. Could your fleet use shore power if the
infrastructure is put in place across the country?
Ms. Kindberg. We are actually connecting today in China.
Mr. Lowenthal. Pardon?
Ms. Kindberg. China has been adding infrastructure very
rapidly. As you know, they have very serious----
Mr. Lowenthal. Onshore power, too. So the United States----
Ms. Kindberg. So the vessels calling in California are also
now connecting in China.
Mr. Lowenthal. What about other ports in the United States?
Would you be able----
Ms. Kindberg. The barrier, I think----
Mr. Lowenthal [continuing]. To connect to shore power?
Ms. Kindberg. We don't have many vessels calling the east
coast that actually have full shore power capability. Only
about 5 to 8 percent of the global container fleet is currently
fully equipped for shore power. It is about $1 million per
vessel to equip it for shore power, and then per berth you
could be talking anywhere from $1 to $5 million, plus the
infrastructure to bring the power to the port.
And, as you know, California bit the bullet and has made
those big investments.
Mr. Lowenthal. Right, California----
Ms. Kindberg. But other places----
Mr. Lowenthal [continuing]. Wants to protect its residents
and the community. And so it made those investments.
Ms. Kindberg. Right, but other places have looked at that
and then decided perhaps they could get their reductions in
other ways that were more cost effective. But, of course,
California had already been through clean trucks and those
things.
Mr. Lowenthal. Do you think it is good to be moving towards
more shore power throughout the----
Ms. Kindberg. I think it is, but I think we have to find
ways to do it more flexibly.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Maloney. I thank the gentleman. We are going to proceed
to a second round of questions, with the witnesses' indulgence.
Before we do that, just a point of personal privilege. I
wanted to thank the person sitting next to me, whose name is
Rennie Meyers, who has been here with the committee on a 1-year
fellowship, NOAA's Sea Grant Fellowship, and has done great
work for the committee.
She is sitting in this chair today, normally occupied by
the gentleman behind her, in recognition of her great work for
the committee and her extraordinary skill in many areas, but
especially in the areas of environmental concern. She will be
going to another important position, where she will continue to
support the committee. So we thank Rennie for her work.
Proceeding to the second round, Doctor, if we could just
finish up on some of the questions that my colleague from
California was asking you, I am interested in the investments
the Chinese are making that you alluded to. And, if you could,
describe why that would be important to the Chinese Communist
Party to make those investments.
Ms. Kindberg. China has a very serious air quality problem.
And so they have been looking at best practices around the
world, and imitating some of those.
So, as we begin to fuel switch here--and you were there
when we first started doing that--they made that voluntary and
then mandatory to use cleaner fuel in ports. And that is a very
good way to reduce the sulfur that, as you mentioned, Mr.
Chairman, does have health effects.
They also are having the vessels connect to shore power,
and then you turn off the engines, so there is no engine
exhaust. And that way it reduces the air emissions, the toxic
air emissions that are created while you are alongside.
Mr. Maloney. And what kind of investments are we talking
about by the Chinese Government in that regard?
Ms. Kindberg. I don't know what the total is, but I know
that there are about 12 or 14 ports that have very quickly
installed shore power capability on lots of berths.
Mr. Maloney. Is that going to merely serve an environmental
purpose in China? Or will there be international economic
opportunities for that technology, that type of equipment, in
shoreside infrastructure that the Chinese can then export?
Ms. Kindberg. I believe a lot of us are actually using
Italian-made--although they may be produced in China, but in
terms of the plugs and so forth----
Mr. Maloney. And in terms of the U.S. industry in that
regard?
Ms. Kindberg. I am not aware of any U.S. industry that is
doing that.
Mr. Maloney. Right. And in other words, I am interested in
the types of investments, in response to Mr. Weber's
questioning about batteries, and the critical role they can
play, and the size and the safety issues, what role could
robust Federal investments in battery technology play in
assisting you in that effort?
How much of that currently is being borne by the private
sector?
In other words, that is a generic technology, to Mr. Bryn's
point about making the technology fit the mission or the
vessel. But there are some basic, core technologies involving
an enormous need for research and development.
Help us understand what role the Federal Government could
play in assisting private industry and moving that to market in
a cost-effective way.
Ms. Kindberg. There are tremendous opportunities, but
tremendous challenges, in terms of coming up with energy
storage. And it is not just the maritime industry, it is our
entire economy. That is a game-changer, if we could come up
with cost-effective ways to store energy, and not just have to
take it as it is made.
So battery technologies would be a game-changer, not just
for the maritime industry, but I think our whole economy.
Mr. Maloney. But from your perspective, is the private
sector going to be able to get there on its own, or do we have
a role to play?
Ms. Kindberg. I think I would have to turn to those who
know----
Mr. Maloney. Sure.
Ms. Kindberg [continuing]. Better than I do.
Mr. Bryn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, looking at battery--
looking at marine battery technology, specifically, if you look
at the cost structure for some of our marine battery
manufacturers, when I talk with them, they say that the cost of
the cells--which is the fundamental building block of the
battery banks--it is on the order of about 20 to 30 percent of
the overall cost. And the remaining 70 percent is specific to a
marine-built battery with--and, obviously, safety is always
paramount, and we have a very high standard in the maritime
industry.
So that is to say that--I would say that about 20 to 30
percent of the cost is going to benefit from the global trend
of high battery volume production, so that cell cost will come
down, just following global trends. The remaining 70 or so
percent, that is up to maritime to get that cost down. And that
is going to be a challenge, because it is generally a low-
volume industry. So I think that is where we can help some of
our marine battery manufacturers out.
And I am happy and proud to say that, despite the fact that
Europe is leading on actually deploying a lot of these battery
technologies, we actually have a lot of manufacturers right
here in the U.S. that are actually supplying some of those, two
in the U.S. and one in Canada that are some of the global
leaders on marine battery systems.
Mr. Maloney. On a different subject, would the panel
comment on the role the Coast Guard plays in the international
enforcement of some of the issues we have been talking about?
It was touched on in some of the testimony. What is the
most effective international enforcement mechanism?
And can you talk on the role the United States Coast Guard
will play?
Mr. Butler. Mr. Chairman, the entire international
enforcement regime, basically, has two prongs. It is flag-state
control and it is port-state control. And the U.S. Coast Guard,
a primary role when we talk about enforcing these environmental
laws, with respect to international ships it is primarily a
port-state control operation.
So it is a question of having the Coast Guard have the
necessary staff and the necessary tools to efficiently inspect
vessels to make sure that they are complying with these various
regulations.
And, as Dr. Kindberg said earlier, it may sound a little
strange for industry to be calling for more enforcement, but
the issue of having a level playing field and making sure that
we are not distorting commerce here is quite critical.
Mr. Berger. I would say the other key role that the Coast
Guard is playing there in terms of inspections is working
closely with industry as we are commercializing new technology.
So other maritime authorities around the globe have clear
standards, let's say, for battery technology, in particular.
But the United States Coast Guard is working hard and working
closely on a case-by-case basis for all battery-operated
systems. We do not have a clear CFR within the Code of Federal
Regulations on battery technology and battery systems on board
vessels.
And so the role that they can play--and I know they are
working hard to do that, and they are in support. But on--at
this point they are still working on a case-by-case basis,
versus having a clear regulation in place to support that. And
what that does is help industry then make investments as they
are commercializing new technology, and that is working their
way up into the fleet.
Mr. Maloney. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs?
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. I know Mr. Butler talked about the
IMO making it by 2050 is probably unlikely, the IMO
requirements. But I want to pursue this a little bit about the
technology with Dr. Kindberg.
What are the horsepower requirements of these
containerships? They are big ships.
Ms. Kindberg. Again, it depends on the size of the vessel.
But when we talk a small vessel, we are talking something that
is 1\1/2\ football fields long.
Mr. Gibbs. Yes.
Ms. Kindberg. And when we talk big, we are talking four
football fields long. So these are big ships.
Mr. Gibbs. What kind of horsepower are those engines?
Ms. Kindberg. And the biggest ones might run two engines
that are 55,000 horsepower.
Mr. Gibbs. Are those direct mechanical--not--they are not
running motors. So running a propulsion system, it is
mechanical, right, or----
Ms. Kindberg. It is one big propeller or two big
propellers, depending----
Mr. Gibbs. So it is a mechanical, off the----
Ms. Kindberg. Yes, and you have got a main shaft.
Mr. Gibbs. Go to Mr. Bryn. When we are talking batteries,
talking--to make that kind of energy equivalent, what kind of--
the battery technology--I know we have made big strides in the
last few years in battery technology, but are we anywhere close
to having that kind of technology to have a battery technology
to propel through electric motors? That would help the quieter
issue, too. That is another issue. Where are we in that?
Mr. Bryn. Yes, thank you, Congressman. The short answer is
no. And I wouldn't expect batteries to ultimately be the
solution for oceangoing vessels. I think batteries may play a
role. They will continue to improve on space and weight and
cost, which are the three main factors that we have to
consider.
I don't think, long term, we ever expect batteries to have
sufficient energy density for a containership. Where ABB would
likely expect one potential candidate, are--as I mentioned--
fuel cells, and that is because you get much greater energy
density in hydrogen fuel than you do in batteries.
So--but batteries may have a role to play, even with fuel
cell systems, because they can handle transient loads much
better. So if you have an instant ramp-up or ramp-down of
power, the battery can help to keep the fuel cell on a steady
output. But fuel cells are one of several solutions being
considered, and it is certainly one that we are focused on.
Mr. Gibbs. Dr. Kindberg, is Maersk looking at fuel cell
technology or not?
Ms. Kindberg. We are looking at it. We are not currently
using it, commercially.
Mr. Gibbs. I yield my--thank you.
Mr. Maloney. Mr. Larsen?
Mr. Larsen. Thank you.
Mr. Berger, on the maritime blue strategy that you have,
that we have in the State, can you comment? Based on your
experience as a merchant mariner, as well as working in the
maritime beyond that, can you comment on what you are planning
to do with regards to workforce development to support these
changes?
It seems that sometimes we can flip a switch on the economy
and move on, but this is new technology, new research and
development that seems to require maybe not all new skills, but
some new thinking on how we develop that workforce. What is the
State doing to prepare for that?
Mr. Berger. Absolutely. Thank you, Congressman. This is
another area where I am a firm believer in that ``yes, and''
approach. As we are looking at new technology, we are focused
on innovation, and we are focused on that investment.
Exactly to your point, we need to be focusing on what the
next generation maritime workforce looks like, and how we
approach that. This is a topic, worldwide. In Washington State
the average age working in the industry right now is 54 years
old. We call it the silver tsunami. The average----
Mr. Larsen. Just a minute. I am 54 years old.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Berger. And there is a role for you on board a vessel,
absolutely.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Larsen. I am sure there is.
Mr. Berger. Yes. The majority of ferry captains----
Mr. Larsen. I can pour a mean bowl of cereal.
Mr. Berger. Likewise, likewise. The majority of captains
and chief engineers in our State ferry systems are ready for
retirement within the next 5 years, the majority of them.
We also have issues around gender equality and
underrepresentation of youth of color that are looking at the
maritime industry as opportunities. That is particular issues
in Washington State. So those are things that we are
particularly focused on--Washington Maritime Blue, as a cluster
organization, is.
We developed a program called the Youth Maritime
Collaborative, and trying to create specific workforce
pipelines and pathways that go right into what we call career-
connected internships and apprenticeships. It is a big focus in
our State of Washington's workforce development planning. So we
are paying particular attention both to making sure that we are
providing pathways, or just the outreach and awareness,
particularly to underrepresented communities, as well as a
focus on the new technologies.
We have done a lot within the State to invest, particularly
in our trades-based programs. But much like all of the focus,
there have been parts and pieces from the Federal perspective,
and focus on both workforce development, as well as in
innovation, where we do not yet have a coordinated approach.
There is not one agency that is focused on maritime, or that is
focused on maritime workforce.
And so, without kind of a concerted effort, without some
sort of coordinated approach, we are not able to really make
the best use of those dollars, or focus those dollars to where
investments are going to make the most sense.
Mr. Larsen. I know that the State has signed an MOU with
the Norwegians. I am not sure which agency in Norway we all
signed with----
Mr. Berger. The MOU is between the Washington State
Department of Commerce and Innovation Norway, which is part of
their Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries.
Mr. Larsen. So within that MOU--this is now moving back to
the technology side of things--within the MOU, I am trying to
figure out how best to kick-start the challenge that the
shipping industry has with regards to getting ships that have
to be ready in 2030 for 2050, and what role that collaboration
plays in developing, and which technologies that can support
shipping to meet those goals in 2050.
Mr. Berger. Right. And even sooner, as Dr. Kindberg was
saying.
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Mr. Berger. That is on multiple fronts. The big part of the
relationship between Washington State and Norway has been
focused on electrification of ferries, in that Norway is a
global leader in that work. And so the opportunities for
technology and knowledge transfer have been remarkable, as well
as some cross-investments.
We have also found great relationships between the
different research universities and research labs. So we are
setting up meetings now between folks in our department of
energy and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the
NTNU that is up in Trondheim in Norway that are, you know,
diving deep into what these potential new fuel source solutions
might look like, whether they are hydrogen or ammonia or
likewise.
So, you know, coupled with Norway's expertise on battery
technology on ferries, and research institutions that we have,
I think, coupled expertise with, that is where--that in line, I
think, focuses on where our MOU is between Washington State.
And it is about cluster-to-cluster relationships. So they have
a built-out system that supports these innovation clusters
across Norway.
Again, this is a public-private relationship, where you
have competitors working together to create new markets and
create new technologies, and with support from Government and
support from research institutions. And we have found that that
has been the best way to move forward actual commercialized
projects that go--that are on the water.
The first all-electric ferry, Ampere, came out of a joint
innovation project, out of a cluster organization. The first
hydrogen ferry that is being built in Norway is coming out of a
joint innovation project within their cluster organization.
These are federally funded, or nationally funded programs--some
of those dollars come from the European Union, as well--coupled
with private investment and R&D and their research
institutions.
And so, yes, we have, you know, business-to-business
relationships with them as we build out projects. We are also
learning from one another on how we develop these types of
joint innovation projects, but we are coupling national Federal
dollars with private investment.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, thank you.
Mr. Maloney. Mr. Weber?
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is it Dr. Kindberg or
Kindberg? I missed what you said.
Ms. Kindberg. It is Kindberg, like kindergarten.
Mr. Weber. Like kindergarten? OK, thank you.
So you said early--well, let me back into it this way. So
the American Association of Port Authorities, which consists of
Canada, the Caribbean, Latin America, United States, I looked
at their website real quick, just for the benefit of the panel
and for our group up here. And under their issues they really
don't talk about any of this. So there is--we are having a
discussion about having ports build facilities, infrastructure,
to charge huge batteries on board ships. And shore power, we
are calling it.
As I said, I have got five ports in my district, more than
any other Member of Congress, and actually ran a transportation
company for a short time, which delivered to ships at the Port
of Galveston. So I have got some first-hand experience in that.
Any time you ask a port to build a--whether it is
electrical, plant, call it whatever you want to--a system of
building out, you are going to have to be taking--to power
ships you are going to be taking very, very, very valuable real
estate to build an energy plant, for example. That is going to
take away from some of the local economy, because a lot of
these harbors and these shoresides and stuff, the docks, are
used to supply these oceangoing vessels.
In the Gulf of Mexico you can go across--down into
Galveston, and look during the night, and you can just count
all the lights, lined out about 40 miles out, 30, 40 miles out,
because--waiting to get in the Houston Ship Channel. If you use
that area for electrification, if you will, powering the ship,
you are taking up a very valuable berth or docking area that
the ports might not be willing to give up, at least at a very
low cost.
Are you with me?
If you look at the American Association of Port Authorities
website, they have a list of issues, and none of this is being
discussed in their issues that I see. So it might behoove us,
Mr. Chairman, to bring them in here in the next discussion, and
to say, ``What say you all about the prospect and possibility
of being able to build out this infrastructure, so that we can
service these on these oceangoing vehicles?''
I hope that makes sense, because this is a group that
really will have a vested interest in it.
Dr. Kindberg, you said early on that there needed to be an
agency that could enforce those rules, enforce them fairly, but
help--something to the effect of, you know, not necessarily
enforce them early on. Kind of as this--you want to elaborate
on that for a second?
Ms. Kindberg. Let me clarify just a little bit. There are
those of us who are acting early, just like we fuel-switched
early in California, and it cost us about $20 million. But
then, when California made it mandatory, we already knew how to
do it.
[Pause.]
Ms. Kindberg. I have lost track of where I was going, I am
sorry.
Mr. Weber. Well, let me fill in some blanks here from
another part of your conversation, while you are thinking.
So you said a ship coming from China to Europe could save
$750,000 on that one trip. How many trips can they make? Is it
one a month? Is it 12 a year? What is it?
Ms. Kindberg. That trip is maybe 12 weeks.
Mr. Weber. So it is 3 months.
Ms. Kindberg. It is--yes.
Mr. Weber. So we want somebody that is able to enforce
those rules, and enforce them fairly. And as--I think what you
are alluding to--as the learning curve is happening, you don't
necessarily want an agency to come in here and just blast
everybody with fines and fees if they are acting in good faith.
I think that is what you are alluding to.
Ms. Kindberg. Well, the point that I was making is
sometimes you have people who try something new.
Mr. Weber. Right.
Ms. Kindberg. Say if we tried a battery from Mr. Bryn. And
then a rule were put in place that made that battery no longer
meet the requirements.
Mr. Weber. OK.
Ms. Kindberg. You would want to grandfather that.
Mr. Weber. Sure.
Ms. Kindberg. And there are also programs that have been
put in place by some ports and other entities that have
actually provided incentives for going beyond the regulatory
requirements.
Mr. Weber. Sure.
Ms. Kindberg. And those have been very effective in some
places.
Mr. Weber. And those are voluntary, by the way, those
incentives.
Ms. Kindberg. Yes.
Mr. Weber. And you shouldn't be penalized in case you don't
want to agree with those.
Mr. Butler, you look like you wanted to weigh in there for
a second.
Mr. Butler. No, I just wanted to emphasize the point that
Dr. Kindberg made. There is short-term enforcement, if you
will, and then there is the question of policy development in
such a way that you create the proper incentives and as Dr.
Kindberg said, you don't penalize people that have tried things
new, and you don't set up situations where you are going to
strand investment----
Mr. Weber. Sure.
Mr. Butler [continuing]. Think it through.
Mr. Weber. Right. And I have been handed a note, Mr.
Chairman, that Ms. Metcalf would like to weigh in.
If you can, do that quickly, please.
Ms. Metcalf. I can do it very quickly. Robust enforcement
is critical. One thing that has not been mentioned yet is the
fact that the industry was fully supportive and, in fact,
recommended initially that the new amendments to MARPOL Annex
VI has a ban on carriage of noncompliant fuel. So it--you don't
just have to not use it. After 1 March 2020 you can't have it
on board.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Maloney. I thank the gentleman. I will just note for
the record that the American Association of Port Authorities,
to its credit, has a section on its website entitled,
``Environment and Energy,'' which includes the language, ``As
environmental leaders in the maritime environment, seaports
employ alternative fuels, such as electricity, fuel cells,
solar power, wind energy, and LNG.''
Mr. Weber. Thank you for that, Mr. Chairman. I scrolled
quickly and didn't see that. Thank you.
Mr. Maloney. I am always happy to be helpful to my friend.
Next, Mr. Lowenthal.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to follow
up on the question of hydrogen fuel cells, and where we are
going with hydrogen fuel cells.
Kind of an interesting process is taking place in my port
at this moment. Toyota, which has been one of the leaders in
hydrogen fuel cells, is in the process of trying to develop a
facility in the Port of Long Beach, which will generate
hydrogen to create hydrogen.
Now, they are going to be using it, I believe--well, first
of all, let me preface that. And our local utility has some
issues with that, as that develops, because of the--what it is
going to take to develop that hydrogen, and how that fits into
our air quality goals. And so this is not an easy thing.
But the port is going to go forward with Toyota with a
demonstration project, and that demonstration project is really
going to be used for heavy-duty trucks and for yard equipment.
I think that is the focus, if this hydrogen facility is
developed, to move forward with that.
My question is, is there a possibility to use this also?
Could this be a stepping stone to the maritime industry itself
to begin to use some of this, if we have a plant in the port
that actually produces hydrogen?
Mr. Berger. Congressman, we also in Washington State have a
couple of demonstration projects----
Mr. Lowenthal. Yes?
Mr. Berger [continuing]. Similar to what you are talking
about. Tacoma Power, which is a utility in the city of Tacoma,
is also looking at the potential of a demonstration project,
not only to power, like you say, yard equipment and trucks.
They also operate a small train that moves containers around
throughout that yard. Grant County PUD in central Washington
State is also looking at it.
That kind of infrastructure, and being able to use those
demonstration projects to take a look at maritime applications,
I think, is absolutely critical. And we saw the first passenger
ferry, hydrogen-powered passenger ferry, in San Francisco. It
was a partnership that was a private partnership, along with
technology that came out of the Sandia National Labs. So
another opportunity for partnering with Federal dollars.
Our department of energy in the water power technology
office has focused their energy for wave and tidal on how to
develop alternative and renewable fuels out at sea. And they
are looking towards what the maritime applications are for
offshore and renewable energy.
So I think all those projects are going to be absolutely
critical, as we look at a network of what the next future fuel
looks like, certainly for global and offshore and deep sea, but
also, as well, for near shore and short sea shipping.
Mr. Lowenthal. Yes, I get it, I am just wondering and
listening to--thank you for that. I just see that, with the
limitations of battery, that we are really looking at, in the
future, other alternatives. And I certainly think that this is
a potential.
I am glad to hear of these demonstration projects. Although
they have not really reached out yet in our community to deal
with some of the maritime shipping part, but they are doing,
you know, every--the--all the other equipment that is needed
at--in the port, itself, is really what they are going to be
using it for.
But I see this as a step in the right direction, and I am
just wondering if others have any thoughts about that.
Ms. Metcalf?
Ms. Metcalf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief.
I am not an engineer, I was a deckie, so I like to see the sun.
I am not technically as proficient as some of my colleagues
here. But I did pass organic chemistry, as I know you did. And
even though I am older, I still have to fight to think outside
the box. But it just keeps coming back to me what water is. It
is salt, sodium chloride, it is oxygen, and it is hydrogen.
Mr. Lowenthal. Right.
Ms. Metcalf. And I think that may be the line that you are
following.
We might have a whole ocean out there of potential hydrogen
fuel, if we can figure out how to actually do it. I will leave
that up to the certified smart people, though. Thank you.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
Mr. Butler. Mr. Lowenthal, just one observation about that.
The question you raise, which is a very good one, about how do
we use some of these demonstration projects to figure out
perhaps where we go next on a bigger scale----
Mr. Lowenthal. That is right.
Mr. Butler [continuing]. Is one of the fundamental research
and development questions out there, because there has been a
lot of discussion today about short sea and ferry applications.
Mr. Bryn properly pointed out that a lot of the technologies
that are available for those applications are not, in fact,
scalable, or not likely to be scalable for transoceanic, deep
sea shipping.
So I think, as we have this discussion about encouraging
investment, about ways in which the Government can help,
private actors can move this forward. We have to keep in mind
that the scale is different for a transoceanic, international,
large vessel sector than it is for the short sea sector.
Mr. Lowenthal. Right.
Mr. Butler. And we can't make the mistake of simply saying,
if batteries work for ferries, we just need a bigger battery.
That is not necessarily the case.
Mr. Berger. Congressman, on your example about the
demonstration projects, you know, I guess the one thing I
wanted to point back out, as well, is as we were working with
the national laboratory systems and the Department of Energy,
as well as Coast Guard and MARAD and NOAA and the Department of
Commerce and EDA funding, there are parts and pieces of folks
across the Federal agencies and enterprise that are having
small parts of this discussion separately.
Until we kind of have a focus and organized conversation, I
think, across the Federal enterprise, it is going to be hard
for us to make the right investments and to the right vessels.
As Congressman Lamb was talking about, it is going to be hard
for us to understand the nuances of different vessel types and
different appropriate fuel types for different--so until we
have that level of organized approach and directed funding
towards that, it is going to be hard for us to really start to
scale and have those level of conversations.
And I think cluster organizations, coupled with your
focused approach, can really help us make some leap-forwards.
Mr. Maloney. Well, I thank you very much, and----
Mr. Lowenthal. I yield back.
Mr. Maloney [continuing]. I thank the panel.
If there are no further questions, I would just conclude by
saying, you know, it is just clear from this conversation--and
one of the reasons behind today's hearing--is that many of us
up here do understand that if we are going to ask you to be who
we want you to be, we are going to have to be who you need us
to be, in terms of the role the public sector needs to play.
And I think that effective teamwork between the public and
private sector in this area, as in so many, is critical.
And so we are very interested in continuing to understand
the productive role the Congress can play, the Federal
Government can play, and the public sector can play, in terms
of resolving some of these issues of effective enforcement,
getting you the basic research and investments necessary to
bring these technologies to market in an economically efficient
way. Some of the political issues involving shoreside
infrastructure and the tradeoffs there, they are all legitimate
concerns and questions. But working together, there is not a
reason in the world we can't solve these issues and make your
industry more successful, more efficient in time to do us some
good in terms of our responsibilities to the climate.
So, with that, seeing no further questions, I would like to
thank all the witnesses for participating in today's hearing.
Your contribution has been tremendous.
And I would ask unanimous consent that the record of
today's hearing remain open until such time as the witnesses
have provided answers to any questions that may have been
submitted to them in writing.
So ordered.
And I ask further 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.
If no one has anything else to add, we will stand
adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chairman, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chairman Maloney, I commend you for taking up the topic
of ``green shipping'' as the first hearing in the new year for the
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
Since new international low sulfur emission standards for marine
transportation kicked in two weeks ago, the timing of this hearing
could not be more appropriate.
For too long global marine carriers have been able to evade
complying with emission control standards, notwithstanding the fact
that other transportation modes did have to comply with emission
standards to reduce a whole host of noxious emissions and other harmful
particulate matter from cars, trains, and planes.
Slowly, the International Maritime Organization was able to build a
consensus on a schedule of emission reductions, that when fully
implemented, will have reduced absolute vessel emissions by at least 50
percent from the 2008 baseline. This is a very positive development
that stands to improve air quality and reduce human health impacts. I
commend the IMO for taking this initiative and moving ahead, but we can
and must do better.
The world's largest shipping company has set a goal of zero
emissions by 2050, but that should be a goal for the entire industry.
If the maritime industry merely reduces vessel emissions by 50 percent
over the next 30 years, the impact of such a reduction could be largely
offset by an increase in vessel traffic.
But to meet even the 50 percent reduction target, the global
maritime industry must overcome substantial technical, economic,
financial, and logistical challenges.
It is the discussion of those challenges that most interests me, in
particular how this scenario could play out here in the United States.
For example, it remains uncertain what role the Federal government
will play in fostering or facilitating the transition to a carbon-free
maritime industry for both our coastwise and foreign trades.
If anything, over the past thirty years the maritime industry has
become almost an orphaned child and an afterthought in the Department
of Transportation. And were it not for the Navy shipbuilding program,
our shipbuilding industry might have entirely lost its capability to
build ocean-going vessels.
Additionally, the switch to a carbon-free maritime industry will
have repercussions across more than just the vessels themselves.
Corresponding impacts also will affect port facilities and maritime
industries that provide fuels, logistical support, and stevedoring for
the new ``green'' fleet of vessels calling on U.S. ports.
So, when we take up the topic of ``green shipping'' we are talking
about much more than just new, innovative vessel designs, or low sulfur
fuels. We are talking about a dynamic shift. A shift that in a
relatively short fifteen- to thirty-year period will result in the
virtual makeover of the conventional global maritime transportation
system.
This is exciting stuff. There are, however, no assurances that we
will end up with a new global maritime supply chain that is more
efficient and less harmful to the global environment. The only way
forward is to engage the industry to learn what they are doing and to
determine the best course of action for the Federal government.
If one thing is clear today it is this: we can no longer afford to
sit on our hands and be idle. Collectively, both the Congress and the
administration need to get to work today reimagining the maritime
industry of tomorrow.
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, Chairman Maloney, and thank you to our witnesses for
being here today.
If the international shipping community were a foreign nation, they
would rank sixth in the world in terms of air emissions from ships. In
light of those significant emissions levels, new International Maritime
Organization (IMO) rules went into effect on January 1st, and IMO has
set more stringent air emission reduction targets for 2030 and 2050.
I applaud the industry for tackling this issue head on, including
proposing new ways to raise funds for research on reducing carbon
emissions.
With that said, we want to make sure any regulations or set targets
are realistic and achievable.
I look forward to hearing the witnesses' assessment of the new
rules which just went into effect, and their views on how the industry
will meet the 2030 and 2050 goals.
Letter of January 14, 2020, from David Bolduc, Executive Director,
Green Marine, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Sean Patrick Maloney
January 14, 2020.
Hon. Sean Patrick Maloney,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, U.S. House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 2331 Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Bob Gibbs,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, U.S. House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 2446 Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
RE: Comments regarding the January 14th Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation's Hearing on The Path to a Carbon-free Maritime
Industry: Investments and Innovation
Dear Chairman Maloney and Ranking Member Gibbs,
Green Marine appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments
regarding the January 14th hearing titled The Path to a Carbon-free
Maritime Industry: Investments and Innovation. This hearing comes at a
critical time, as the maritime industry moves to meet the International
Maritime Organization 2030 and 2050 carbon emissions reduction goals.
In our comments, we would like to address the importance of
collaboration between the maritime industry, government, and NGOs; how
essential is a clear, data-based, enforced regulatory baseline; and
finally, the value of voluntary programs to achieve greater
sustainability.
Our work and goals
Established in 2007, Green Marine is a voluntary marine industry
certification program with the goal of achieving increasing levels of
environmental performance that exceed regulatory requirements. There
are currently more than 140 ship owners, port authorities, terminals
and shipyards from coast to coast in the United States and Canada
participating in the program \1\. The Green Marine environmental
certification program addresses key environmental issues through 12
performance indicators that include greenhouse gases, air emissions,
spill prevention, waste management, environmental leadership, and
community impacts--some applicable to shipping activities, others to
landside operations. The certification process is rigorous and
transparent with results independently verified every two years. Each
company's individual performance is evaluated and made public annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A complete list of all Green Marine participants is available
online here: https://green-marine.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/
GM_Members_December2019.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green Marine's mission is to advance environmental excellence. Our
environmental certification program offers a detailed framework for
maritime companies to first establish and then reduce their
environmental footprint. Our participants--ship owners, port
authorities, Seaway corporations, terminal operators and shipyard
managers--have to demonstrate year-over-year improvement in measurable
ways to maintain their Green Marine certification.
Green Marine's success as the premier environmental certification
program for North America's maritime industry stems in good part from
its efforts to identify and address regional as well as continental
issues. As a result, some of the performance indicators have been
developed to protect specific habitat and/or species in a region or to
deal with particular maritime operations within that area. The program
has earned support from more than 70 environmental organizations,
scientific research programs and government agencies. These supporters
\2\ contribute to shaping and revising the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A complete list of all Green Marine Supporters is available
online here: https://green-marine.org/members/supporters/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The importance of a collaborative approach
As Green Marine has grown, we have still held true to our founding
goals to strengthen our industry's environmental performance and strive
for continual improvement; engage with government agencies and gain
their recognition, input, and support for the industry's efforts and
outcomes towards sustainability; and, build our relationships with the
NGO and environmental community. Familiarize them with the industry's
advancement and benefits. Earn their trust and support.
For example, Green Marine formally engaged in a few strategic
Memorandums of understanding. The MoU signed on October 2013 with the
American Association of Port Authorities was pivotal to Green Marine
membership expansion in the United States, raising the number of
participating U.S. ports from the initial five in Green Marine to the
current 22 American ports. Through this agreement, the AAPA and Green
Marine formally recognize their mutual interests and support and share
common goals to advance environmental protection at seaports in the
Western Hemisphere.
AAPA determined that the Green Marine program is legitimate,
applicable, voluntary and scalable for port authority and marine/
intermodal terminal operations, and the association encourages their
members who find it beneficial to their operations to participate in
the program.
Green Marine also seeks international and technical collaborations.
For example, the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers
(SNAME) became a new association member of Green Marine in March 2019
and signed an accord with Green Marine to further their common goals in
fostering greater environmental sustainability in the maritime sector.
The partnership will enhance the exchange of technical information
between Green Marine and SNAME to further minimize the environmental
impact of marine commerce.
Last year, Washington State rolled out its plan to accelerate
maritime tech innovation, create jobs, protect the environment, and
ensure industry sustainability and growth. Maritime Blue 2050 is the
first initiative of its kind in the United States, and Green Marine is
proud to be recognized within the strategy and to have supported the
development and now the implementation and leadership for the strategy
through West Coast & US Program Manager Eleanor Kirtley serving on the
Steering Committee and Board of Directors.
Green Marine counts 30 associations members, a dozen based in the
United States.\3\ We believe a collaborative approach is essential to
tackle the decarbonisation challenge, and Green Marine makes a point of
fostering partnerships within the industry and outside. Our regional
advisory committees and workgroups bring a diversified group of
stakeholders (industry representatives, NGOs, governmental agencies,
academics, technology suppliers, etc.) to the table to discuss the
environmental program development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A complete list of all Green Marine Association members is
available online here: https://green-marine.org/members/associations/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The regulatory baseline
Green Marine criteria regularly undergo reassessment to ensure that
all levels are sufficiently demanding in relation to existing or
imminent regulations, as well as the availability and feasibility of
new technologies and/or best management practices. The 2020 IMO sulfur
emissions regulation, for example, influenced our indicator on Sulfur
oxides (SOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions. Green Marine
supports clear, data-based, and enforced regulations for the marine
transportation industry so we can provide our ship owners, port
authorities, terminals and shipyards operators with a detailed and
comprehensive set of criteria helping them stay beyond compliance.
The positive, effective impact of voluntary programs
Green Marine has a track record of measured improvement, year on
year for the past twelve years. On a scale of Levels 1 to 5, where 1 is
the regulatory baseline and 5 stands for Excellence and Leadership,
half of our participants reach an average of Level 3 and above. Our
participants who have been in the program the longest, on average
achieve the highest levels. We have gone beyond environmental
compliance while growing the program scope of the environmental issues,
strengthening the criteria each year, and increasing the number of
participants. Membership has grown by 10% year on year. The growth of
our membership proves that it answers a need and a tangible desire
within the industry for a voluntary program under which participants
take on concrete steps to minimize the environmental impacts of their
activities. The overall level improvements registered by all the
different types of participants in the latest results \4\ is a
testimony to the real commitment by the membership to continually
strive to do better while accepting greater challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The latest results relate to the 2018 year of operation and are
published in Green Marine 2018 Annual Performance report (https://
green-marine.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2018Perfo_Report_final_WEB-
1.pdf). The evaluation period for the 2019 operations is currently in
progress and the next results will be released in early June 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to voice our support for clean
shipping initiatives; for collaboration with industry and NGOs; for
clear, data-based, and enforced regulations; and for recognition for
the efficacy of voluntary programs like ours for example.
It is gratifying to have Green Marine's certification program
recognized by more and more enterprises as a challenging but feasible
approach to improve sustainability through a step-by-step framework to
address priority issues. We hope that the international regulatory
shift towards more stringent requirements and the general public
increased awareness towards sustainability can promote a culture of
continual improvement beyond regulatory compliance. We also
respectfully hope Green Marine can continue play a central role in
intensifying dialogue and direct collaboration between the maritime
industry and stakeholders (NGOs, governments, municipalities,
scientists, etc.), and establishing and/or strengthening the existing
collaborations and environmental strategies with partners in both
Canada and the United States.
Thank you again for the opportunity to submit these comments
regarding the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation's
hearing on The Path to a Carbon-free Maritime Industry: Investments and
Innovation.
Sincerely,
David Bolduc,
Executive Director, Green Marine.
Letter of January 14, 2020, from Daniel Hubbell, Shipping Emissions
Campaign Manager, Ocean Conservancy, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Sean Patrick Maloney
January 14, 2020.
Hon. Sean Patrick Maloney,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, U.S. House of
Representatives, 2331 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Bob Gibbs,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, U.S. House of
Representatives, 2446 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Maloney and Ranking Member Gibbs,
Ocean Conservancy thanks the Subcommittee for highlighting the
pressing challenges of climate and the maritime industry in the
upcoming hearing on The Path to a Carbon-Free Maritime Industry.
Shipping, both domestic and international, accounted for approximately
2.6% of global CO2 emissions in 2015.\1\ This places the sector in the
same class as a G7 country, roughly equivalent to Germany's national
emissions. While the sector continues to improve its energy efficiency
and remains more efficient than any other form of cargo transportation,
these improvements have not kept pace with the growth of trade, and
emissions have continued to increase.\2\ If no advances in technology
and low or zero carbon fuels are adopted, emissions from shipping could
continue to grow up to 250% from 2012 levels by 2050.\3\ The industry
can adapt but an effort from government and industry is needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Olmer, N., Comer, B., Roy, B., Mao, X., Rutherford, D. (2017).
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Global Shipping, 2013-2015. The
International Council on Clean Transportation. Available at: https://
theicct.org/publications/GHG-emissions-global-shipping-2013-2015
\2\ Ibid. At 8
\3\ Balcombe, P., Brierley, J., Lewis, C., Skatvedt, L., Speirs,
J., Hawkes, A., & Staffell, I. (2019). How to decarbonise international
shipping: Options for fuels, technologies and policies. Energy
conversion and management, 182, 72-88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While shipping is a prime contributor to climate change, it is also
exposed to its impacts. Many American ports are vulnerable to sea-level
rise and storm surges made worse by climate change. Even temporary
disruptions of these facilities have serious economic consequences. For
instance, in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy the Port Authority of New
York and New Jersey was forced to divert more than 25,000 shipping
containers to other ports, part of an estimated $2.2 billion in damages
and losses to the Authority.\4\ Rising seas also impact our naval
bases. In the past ten years, Norfolk Naval Shipyard has suffered nine
major floods that damaged equipment.\5\ At present, few American ports
are climate resilient or ready for the realities of a world that has
already warmed more than 1.8 +F from pre-industrial levels, and could
rise to more than 2.7 +F by 2030.\6\ It is clear that we need to build
resilience to climate impacts--and significantly reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from all sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Strunsky, S. (2019). Port Authority puts Sandy damage at $2.2
billion, authorizes $50 million to power wash PATH tunnels. NJ.com
Available at: https://www.nj.com/news/2013/10/
port_authority_sandy_22billion_outlines_recovery_measures.html
\5\ Kusnetz, N. (2018). Rising seas threaten Norfolk Naval
Shipyard, raising fears of `catastrophic change'. NBC News. Available
at: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/
rising-seas-threaten-norfolk-naval-shipyard-raising-fears-catastrophic-
damage-n937396
\6\ IPCC, 2018: Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5
+C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 +C
above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission
pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the
threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to
eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Portner, D.
Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Pean, R.
Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E.
Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2018, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted its
Initial IMO Strategy on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships.\7\ The
ultimate goal is to eliminate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the
sector as soon as possible, and reduce emissions by at least 50% from
2008 levels by 2050.\8\ In our view it is essential that full
decarbonization of the shipping sector be achieved as soon as possible,
and no later than 2050. Notably, shipping was not directly included in
the Paris Agreement.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ IMO. (2018). Resolution 304(72). Available at: Initial IMO
Strategy on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships http://www.imo.org/
en/OurWork/Documents/Resolution%20MEPC.304%
2872%29%20on%20Initial%20IMO%20Strategy%20on%20reduction%20of%20GHG
%20emissions%20from%20ships.pdf
\8\ Rutherford, D. & Comer, B. (2018). The International Maritime
Organization's initial greenhouse gas strategy. The International
Council on Clean Transportation. Available at: https://theicct.org/
publications/IMO-initial-GHG-strategy
\9\ Light, J. (2018). A Paris Agreement for the Shipping Industry.
UN Dispatch. Available at: https://www.undispatch.com/a-paris-
agreement-for-the-shipping-industry/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many technologies and operational changes are available today to
reduce a ship's GHG emissions. Ships can slow down to save fuel;
reducing speed by 20% can not only reduce emissions by up to 34% but
also potentially reduce other environmental impacts, such as underwater
noise or air pollution.\10\ Ship operators can also install wind-
assisted propulsion technologies that can significantly reduce fuel
consumption, up to 47% for some ships.\11\ Additionally, hull air
lubrication systems can cut fuel use and emissions by 10% or more.\12\
The sector will require a combination of energy-saving technologies,
such as wind-assisted propulsion, as well as alternative zero or low-
carbon fuels, such as hydrogen or ammonia, to truly decarbonize by
midcentury.\13\ These technological and operational changes present
opportunities for the industry; however the lifespan of vessels
requires coordination and innovation to be successful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Leaper, R. C. (2019). The role of slower vessel speeds in
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, underwater noise and collision risk
to whales. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6, 505.
\11\ Comer, B., Chen, C., Stolz, D., & Rutherford, D. (2019).
Rotors and bubbles: Route-based assessment of innovative technologies
to reduce ship fuel consumption and emissions. The International
Council on Clean Transportation. Available at: https://theicct.org/
publications/working-paper-imo-rotorships
\12\ Ibid. at 8.
\13\ Hall, D., Pavlenko, N., & Lutsey, N. (2018). Beyond road
vehicles: Survey of zero-emissions technology options across the
transport sector. The International Council on Clean Transportation.
Available at: https://theicct.org/publications/zero-emission-beyond-
road-vehicles
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the lifespan of oceangoing vessels (oceangoing ships
routinely sail for 20-30 years or more,\14\ while Great Lakes ships
have been known to last for over 100 years \15\), the first zero
emission oceangoing vessels must be on the water by 2030 if there is
any chance for decarbonization by 2050. In recognition of this, The
Getting to Zero Coalition, an alliance of more than 90 companies from
multiple sectors, formed in 2019 with the purpose of getting commercial
deep sea zero emission ships on the water by 2030.\16\ Although use of
these fuels would constitute a radical shift for the industry, shipping
has demonstrated its ability to adapt and change fuel types over its
history, including in the global shift to lower sulfur fuels that began
on January 1st, 2020.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ UNCTAD. (2019). Review of maritime transport 2019. United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Available at: https://
unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?
publicationid=2563
\15\ Greene, M. (2019, April 18). Former `jinx ship' breezes
through Chicago without a hitch. The Chicago Tribune. Available at:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-met-st-marys-
challenger-barge-chicago-20190416-story.html
\16\ Global Maritime Forum. (2019). Getting to Zero. Available at:
https://www.globalmaritimeforum.org/getting-to-zero-coalition/
\17\ Balcombe et al. 2019
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States alone accounts for approximately 8% of global
trade and has the opportunity to be a leader. Billions of dollars of
goods flow through our ports each day.\18\ Moreover, the United States
has the technical know-how to be a leader in zero emission
technologies, with world-class research facilities, such as Sandia
National Laboratories, which have done research on zero emission
vessels and their fuels.\19\ These innovative research labs and
technical know-how place the United States in a strong position to
foster innovation and drive the operational and technological changes
the maritime industry needs if it is to decarbonize successfully.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ O'leary, A. (2019). Legal Pathways to Deep Decarbonization In
the United States. Chapter 17: Shipping. Edited by Gerrard, M.B., and
Dernbach, J.C. Environmental Law Institute.
\19\ Sandia National Laboratories. (2019). Maritime applications
for hydrogen fuel cells. Available at: https://energy.sandia.gov/
programs/sustainable-transportation/hydrogen/
market-transformation/maritime-fuel-cells/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As this Subcommittee considers what incentives and support U.S.
vessels need to thrive in a decarbonized maritime industry, Ocean
Conservancy suggests the following options,
1. Support collaboration across ports. Some U.S. ports, such as
Long Beach, Los Angeles, and New York/New Jersey, have already
committed to exploring investment in alternative fuels and other
initiatives like onshore power, but more work is needed. In the long
term, such investment by multiple ports could open the possibility of
zero emission short sea shipping by U.S. flagged ships.
2. Explore a federal fuel tax per ton of CO2 emitted by maritime
ships entering U.S. ports. Not only could a tax encourage more energy
efficient ships in the short term but the proceeds could finance
research and development of zero emission ships.\20\ \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Id. At 456
\21\ Wan, Z., El Makhloufi, A., Chen, Y., & Tang, J. (2018).
Decarbonizing the international shipping industry: Solutions and policy
recommendations. Marine pollution bulletin, 126, 428-435.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Offer grants for development of zero emission technologies or
tax incentives for companies which install fuel saving equipment such
as wind-assisted propulsion technologies, such as rotor sails.
4. Identify innovative initiatives to reduce shipping emissions
within individual ports and states, and encourage their regional and
national adoption.
5. Fund the procurement of zero emission vessels for government
agencies. By procuring zero emission vessels, the government can, in
partnership with both public and private ports, build the market for
zero emission fuel infrastructure within key ports, either with
additional direct financial support or in public-private partnerships.
6. Encourage the U.S. delegation to the IMO to support ambitious
global standards that encourage the worldwide uptake of zero-carbon
fuels and technologies. We encourage the Subcommittee to consult with
the U.S. Coast Guard, which is the lead agency for the IMO, on its
current position, and its own cross agency discussions with other
relevant agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
As you work to develop a strategy for zero emissions vessels, we
encourage the Committee take a collaborative approach engaging maritime
industry stakeholders, lead maritime federal agencies, and
nongovernmental groups like Ocean Conservancy to develop a robust
approach that allows us all to move toward a decarbonized future.
Thank you for your consideration of this important topic. Ocean
Conservancy looks forward to working with you as you develop solutions.
Thank you,
Daniel Hubbell,
Shipping Emissions Campaign Manager, Ocean Conservancy.
Letter of January 13, 2020, from Bruce Appelgate, Associate Director,
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Sean Patrick Maloney
January 13, 2020.
A zero-emission hydrogen fuel cell oceanographic research vessel at
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Scripps Institution of Oceanography urgently needs a new research
vessel to replace its venerable R/V Robert Gordon Sproul, which after
serving scientists, students and engineers for 38 years has reached the
end of its service life. Ships like Sproul are critical for
understanding the physical and biological processes in our oceans, and
how they are impacted by human activities.
We are actively engaged in designing a new replacement vessel. We
envision a new state-of-the-art ship that will carry on the important
scientific activities that Sproul has made possible, and to provide new
and compelling educational opportunities for upcoming generations of
scientists, engineers, policy makers and educators during this time of
rapid environmental change.
A key part of such a vessel is a clean power plant that fits our
University's pledge to become carbon neutral by 2025. In November 2013,
President Janet Napolitano announced the Carbon Neutrality Initiative
\1\, which commits the University of California to emitting net zero
greenhouse gases from its buildings and vehicle fleet by 2025,
something no other major university system has done. As part of the UC
San Diego campus, Scripps is joined in this effort. We have completed a
feasibility study \2\ to build and operate a Zero Emission Research
Vessel (ZERO-V) that uses a fuel cell system to convert liquid hydrogen
fuel to electricity to supply all the power required on board. This
comprehensive study demonstrated the technical and regulatory
feasibility of a coastal research vessel powered solely by hydrogen
fuel cells.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ University of California Carbon Neutrality Initiative,
www.ucop.edu/carbon-neutrality-initiative
\2\ Klebanoff, L. E. et al, Feasibility of the Zero-V: A zero-
emission hydrogen fuel-cell, coastal research vessel, Sandia National
Laboratories, Livermore CA, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a research vessel, the advantages of using hydrogen fuel cells
are considerable. Zero emissions hydrogen technology allows the
collection of air samples with no contamination from vessel exhaust.
Since fuel cells are very low noise power systems, such research
vessels are quieter and thus radiate substantially less underwater
noise, which enables better scientific acoustic operations reduces
noise impacts on marine wildlife. PEM fuel cells offer faster power
response than internal combustion engine technology, which is an
advantage in vessel handling and positioning. Fuel cells generate pure,
deionized water which is needed for laboratory use and can also be
treated to use as the ship's source of potable water (both of which we
currently go to great lengths to produce this at sea). No fossil fuels
on board means there is no risk of an oil spill, which improves our
ability to work in sensitive habitats without fear of polluting them.
This is a game-changing approach to marine power that, if
demonstrated and adopted widely, could significantly reduce pollution
and CO2 emissions from ships, which have been shown to have major
health impacts on population centers ashore, and contribute to
greenhouse warming. To realize our vision of clean renewable marine
hydrogen power, we are faced with substantial challenges. The federal
regulatory framework for building and operating U.S.-flagged liquid
hydrogen-fueled ships is a work in progress, and requires important
participation by the U.S. Coast Guard. Most of the hydrogen available
today is ``dirty''--it is derived from methane in a process that
releases methane's carbon into the atmosphere as CO2. For hydrogen fuel
to be truly CO2-free it needs to be sourced from hydrolysis of water
using renewable power. Hydrogen currently costs more than diesel per
mile, meaning that the cost of operating a clean ship is currently more
than operating one that uses fossil fuels.
All of these challenges can be overcome with the maturation of the
hydrogen industry in general, and the maritime hydrogen power sector in
particular. I urge congress to work with the hydrogen and maritime
industries so that we can develop a production and distribution
infrastructure in America that can reliably provide clean hydrogen to
consumers, at rates that are competitive with polluting fossil fuels.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Sincerely,
Bruce Appelgate,
Associate Director, Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
Letter of January 14, 2020, from Jesse N. Marquez, Executive Director,
Coalition For A Safe Environment, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Sean
Patrick Maloney
January 14, 2020.
Hon. Sean Patrick Maloney,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Coast Guard & Maritime Transportation, U.S. House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 2331 Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Bob Gibbs,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Coast Guard & Maritime Transportation, U.S. House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 2446 Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Subcommittee on Coast Guard & Maritime Transportation,
507 Ford House Office Building, Washington, DC.
RE: Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation's Hearing
on The Path to a Carbon-Free Maritime Industry: Investments and
Innovation on January 14, 2020
SU: Public Comments
Dear Chairman Maloney and Ranking Member Gibbs:
The Coalition For A Safe Environment as a member of the Moving
Forward Network respectfully submits our public comments to the
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation's Hearing on
The Path to a Carbon-Free Maritime Industry: Investments and
Innovation.
The Moving Forward Network is a national network of over 50 member
organizations that centers grassroots, frontline-community knowledge,
expertise, and engagement from communities across the US that bear the
negative impacts of the global freight transportation system. The
Moving Forward Network builds the capacity of network participants
working to improve the U.S. Freight Transportation System in the areas
of environmental justice, public health, quality of life, the
environment and labor.
We thank you for the opportunity to submit public comments on the
following themes:
Industry Resistance To Innovation & Decarbonization of
the Maritime Industry
Benefits of Decarbonization
Status of Zero Emissions On-Road Freight Transportation
Vehicles
Status of Zero Emissions Off-Road Cargo Handling
Equipment
Status of Ship Emissions Capture & Treatment Technologies
Status of Zero Emission Ships and Barges
Status of Zero Emissions Construction Equipment
International Maritime Organization Standards--MARPOL
Annex 6, 13
Current & Past Port Freight Transportation,
Infrastructure & Mitigation Funding Mechanisms
Homeland Security
1. Industry Resistance To Innovation & Decarbonization of the Maritime
Industry
We have witnessed numerous times year-after-year, project-after-
project Ports, Terminal Operators, Railyard, Shipping and Trucking
Companies resistance to the introduction of clean zero emission
technologies and even emission capture and treatment technologies
across all sectors of on-road, off-road and ocean going vessel, freight
transportation vehicles and cargo handling equipment.
We understand that new innovative technologies take time to
develop, a significant upfront investment and time to mature just like
all of their predecessors. Even today proven certified new Class 8
Diesel Engine Drayage Trucks off the production line breakdown for
various equipment failure reasons. It requires patience, understanding
and diligence to prevail.
It is a fact that new technologies will eventually
replace old technologies.
It is a fact the new technologies are more cost-effective
and efficient than old technologies.
It is a fact that most new technologies have zero
emissions.
It is a fact that there are governmental agency approved
ship emissions capture and treatment technologies.
Ports, Terminal Operators, Railyard, Shipping and Trucking
Companies historically have not introduced one new carbon-free or zero
emissions technology on their own accord in the last 20 years.
It has been public comments, public outcry, protests,
demonstrations, environmental lawsuits, grass roots campaign to replace
elected officials with progressive candidates and new public sponsored
laws, rules, regulations, programs that has allowed innovation and
change to occur.
It has been the public and community organizations partnering and
supporting new innovative technology companies that has opened the
Pandora's Box and the challenge to the sacred cow.
In 2001 it took San Pedro, California homeowners associations and
residents to file an environmental lawsuit against the #1 largest
container port in the U.S. the Port of Los Angeles to force them to
incorporate clean technologies. The Port of Los Angeles was so arrogant
they did not even prepare an environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report for the new China Shipping Terminal. They
were found guilty, a court injunction ordered them to cease and desist
all construction on a 60% completed new terminal and established a $ 50
million Miitgation Fund.
The Plaintiffs demanded that the new terminal be electric, the Port
of Los Angeles refused saying it was not feasible and not cost-
effective. The court disagreed. Several studies have now been published
which disclosed that it is in fact cheaper for a ship to plug-in then
use bunker fuel.
The courts ordered the Port of Los Angeles to build the first
electric shorepower terminal, retrofit 70% of the ships to plug-in,
install diesel truck emission capture technologies and mitigate
community impacts. The settlement also required the use of Low-Sulfur
Marine Fuel. Then 10 years later the Port of Los Angeles was found
again guilty of not-complying with the court order stipulation
mitigation agreement. We the public also found out that the Port of LA
forgot to sign a binding contract with China Shipping.
In 2006 the California public and environmental organization
supported AB32 the Global Warming Solution Act which became law. The
law required that California adopt early actions measures to reduce
greenhouse gases within 5 years. The Coalition For A Safe Environment
as a member of the Environmental Justice Advisory Committee recommended
that all major California ports should be required to have electric
shorepower. The recommendation was adopted by the California Air
Resources Board and a new ship shorepower regulation was issued in
2014. Today all California major ports have electric shorepower power.
However, the majority of all ships are not retrofitted to plug into
electric shorepower.
Advanced Cleanup Technologies, Inc. (ACTI) a new emerging small
minority owned Hispanic business 13 years ago presented their idea for
a ship and locomotive engine exhaust capture and treatment technology
to the Port of Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners and Port
Staff, they laughed at him and said it was an unproven technology.
ACTI was able to secure several governmental agency grants to build
a prototype in 2006 to test on locomotives. The Advance Locomotive
Emissions Contrail System (ALECS) technology was found to be 80%-90%
effective in capturing and treating locomotive engine exhaust
emissions. In 2008 the Port of Long Beach gave ACTI permission to
install and begin testing their Advance Maritime Emissions Contrail
System (AMECS) technology with a terminal operator on their ships. In
2014, the City of Long Beach and the California South Coast Air Quality
Management District give ACTI a contract for a formal demonstration of
the AMECS technology. The AMECS technology was now 90%-99% effective in
capturing and treating ship auxiliary engine and boiler exhaust
emissions.
On October 17, 2015 AMECS was approved by the California Air
Resources Board and has been used on over 300 ships. AMECS has even
been proven to be more cost-effective then electric shorepower. AMECS
Use existing state-of-the art off-the-shelf proven technologies, does
not require any modification of a ship, any modification of terminal
infrastructure, does not require any shorepower & not subject to power
outages, does not require any additional special permits, can be built
Stationary On-Dock or Mobile On-Barge and works on any category class
of ship. As of today not one port in California or Terminal Operator
has purchased an AMECS system.
The first two companies in the U.S. to build a Zero Emissions
Electric Truck have went bankrupt. Balcon built the first electric
battery Class 8 Drayage Truck and Vision Motor Corp another local Los
Angeles small business built the first Hydrogen Fuel Cell Battery
Truck. Yes the Port of Los Angeles has given grants (public money) to
conduct their first pilot projects with 1-2 trucks but after years of
developing and improving their technologies, the ports refused to
purchase more trucks. Vision Motor Corps had two major trucking
companies willing to purchase 200 and 300 hydrogen fuel cell Tyrano
trucks but the Port of Los Angeles refused to support them, would not
recognize or give the trucking companies pollution credits. Ports will
give grants to test and do pilot demonstrations forever. No Port has
included Zero Emissions Trucks as mitigation in any EIS/EIR as of
today. They include a lease agreement statement to conduct a technology
assessment every five years.
California and other states have innovative technology companies
that we need to embrace and invest in before foreign companies steal
our innovative technology leadership. The US has already lost 99% of
its merchant ship building base to foreign countries.
2. Benefits of Decarbonization
It is a fact that new technologies support long term
economic sustainability.
It is a fact that new technologies significantly reduce
air pollution.
It is a fact that new technologies significantly reduce
greenhouse gas reductions.
It is a fact that new technologies reduce significantly
public health impacts.
It is a fact that new technologies reduce significantly
reduce public health care costs.
It is a fact that new technologies support long term
economic sustainability.
It is a fact that new technologies reduce premature
transportation infrastructure.
It is a fact that new technologies create more new jobs
3. Status of Zero Emissions On-Road Freight Transportation Vehicles
Trucks
Ports and the Traditional Diesel Fuel and Natural Gas Freight Truck
Transportation Industry give the impression that Carbon-Free Zero
Emission Class 8, Class 7 etc. trucks are not available, which is not
true. The Coalition For A Safe Environment publishes almost monthly a
Zero Emission Transportation Vehicles, Cargo Handling Equipment &
Construction Equipment Commercial Availability Survey. Here are a few
facts:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently Available For Purchase/
One Year Delivery
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Trucks Class 8............ 11
Electric Class 7 Truck............. 1
Electric Trucks Class 6............ 6
Electric Trucks Class 5............ 2
Electric Trucks Class 4............ 1
Electric Trucks Class 3............ 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a fact that all Class 8 Zero Emission Trucks can meet the
demand for all short hauls of less than 100 miles. The Ports refuse to
include these trucks for mitigation for all projects, terminals,
railyards, intermodal facilities that have short haul requirements.
Trains
Ports and the Traditional Diesel Fuel and Natural Gas Freight Train
Transportation Industry give the impression that Carbon-Free Zero
Emission Trains are not available, which is not true. The Coalition For
A Safe Environment publishes almost monthly a Zero Emission
Transportation Vehicles, Cargo Handling Equipment & Construction
Equipment Commercial Availability Survey. Here are a few facts:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently Available For Purchase/
One Year Delivery
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Trains.................... 22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Port of Rotterdam has been using electric trains exclusively
for over 50 years in Europe. There are over 5 countries that are using
electric freight trains.
4. Status of Zero Emissions Off-Road Cargo Handling Equipment
Trucks
Ports and the Traditional Diesel Fuel and Natural Gas Freight Truck
Transportation Industry give the impression that Carbon-Free Zero
Emission Class 8, Class 7 etc. trucks are not available, which is not
true. The Coalition For A Safe Environment publishes almost monthly a
Zero Emission Transportation Vehicles, Cargo Handling Equipment &
Construction Equipment Commercial Availability Survey. Here are a few
facts:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently Available For Purchase/
One Year Delivery
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Yard Tractors Class 8..... 10
Electric Class 7 Truck............. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a fact that all Class 8 and Class 7 Zero Emission Trucks can
meet the demand for all short hauls of less than 100 miles. The Ports
refuse to include these trucks for mitigation for all projects,
terminals, railyards, intermodal facilities that have short haul
requirements.
Cranes
Ports and the Traditional Diesel Fuel and Natural Gas Cargo
Handling Industry give the impression that Carbon-Free Zero Emission
vehicle and equipment are not available, which is not true. The
Coalition For A Safe Environment publishes almost monthly a Zero
Emission Transportation Vehicles, Cargo Handling Equipment &
Construction Equipment Commercial Availability Survey. Here are a few
facts:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently Available For Purchase/
One Year Delivery
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Ship-to-Shore (STS) Rail- 3
Mounted Gantry Cranes.............
Electric Rubber-Tired Gantry (RTG) 6
Cranes............................
Electric Rail-Mounted Gantry Cranes 1
Electric Bulk Handling Crane....... 1
Carry Deck Crane................... 2
Reach Stackers..................... 7
Shuttle Carrier.................... 1
Straddle Carrier................... 4
Trailer Spreader................... 1
Electric Forklifts................. 109
Electric Pallet Truck.............. 1
Top Front End Payloader............ 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a fact that that almost every manufacturer will build zero
emission Cargo Handling Equipment if a customer requests it.
5. Status of Ship Emissions Capture & Treatment Technologies
Ports and the Traditional Shipping Industry give the impression
that there are no ship emissions capture and treatment technologies
available, which is not true. Here are a few facts:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently Available For Purchase/
One Year Delivery
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ship Emissions Capture & Treatment 2
Technologies......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only one company can accommodate all ship classes and categories.
ACTI which is now Advanced Environmental Group, LLC (AEG).
6. Status of Zero Emission Ships & Barges
As of today there are no Zero Emission Freight Transport Ships,
however, in 2012 Nippon Yusen launched the first partially 10% solar
powered RoRo Ship the Auriga which visited the Port of Long Beach.
The nation's first hydrogen fuel cell electric powered Zero
Emission Passenger Ferry is now operating in San Francisco Bay and in
2012 the largest Swiss designed solar 50 passenger ship the Turanor
PlanetSolar completed an 18 month global world trip.
In 2018 the Ports of Rotterdam, Antwerp and Amsterdam became the
first in the world to begin using Zero Emission Barges. The Dutch
manufacturer Port Liner built the five Carbon-Free Barges which have no
engine rooms which allowed 8% more cargo to be carried.
We believe that hydrogen fuel cell electric power is the current
available clean sustainable technology to invest in that will meet the
need of carbon-free ship freight transportation.
7. Status of Zero Emissions Construction Equipment
Ports and the Traditional Diesel Fuel and Natural Gas Cargo
Construction Industry give the impression that Carbon-Free Zero
Emission construction vehicles and equipment are not available, which
is not true. The Coalition For A Safe Environment publishes almost
monthly a Zero Emission Transportation Vehicles, Cargo Handling
Equipment & Construction Equipment Commercial Availability Survey. Here
are a few facts:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently Available For Purchase/
One Year Delivery
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Dredgers.................. 5
Tracked Dozer (Tractor)............ 1
Excavators......................... 4
Top Front End Payloader............ 1
Wheeled Loader..................... 5
Rope Shovels....................... 3
Wheel Dumper....................... 1
Concrete Mixers.................... 1
Dump Trucks........................ 4
Delivery Truck..................... 8
Cab Chassis Delivery Truck......... 8
Flat Bed Truck..................... 3
Cargo Panel Van.................... 11
Electric Pickup Trucks............. 7
Utility/Electric Trucks............ 3
Aerial Boom Trucks................. 4
Compact Utility Vehicles........... 22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. International Maritime Organization Standards--MARPOL Annex 6, 13
Currently requires the worldwide transition into low-sulfur marine
fuels.
Currently requires that all ships entering the U.S. West Coast
Emission Control Area (ECA) must comply with NOX, SOX and PM emissions
requirements.
Currently requires that all ships entering the U.S. West Coast ECA
built after January 1, 2016 must have cleaner Tier 3 Engines.
8. Current & Past Port Freight Transportation, Infrastructure &
Mitigation Funding Mechanisms
California has been the national leader in introducing innovative
funding mechanism to support investment in freight transportation and
infrastructure.
In 1998 the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment
Program (Moyer Program or Program) has cost-effectively reduced smog-
forming and toxic emissions. The Carl Moyer Program is implemented as a
partnership between the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and
California's 35 local air districts. CARB works collaboratively with
the air districts and other stakeholders to set Guidelines and ensure
the Program reduces pollution and provides cleaner air for
Californians. Approximately $1 billion has been allocated to date and
the Program continues to provide over $60 million in grant funding each
year to clean up older polluting engines throughout California.
The 2001 China Shipping San Pedro Homeowners environmental lawsuit
settlement with the Port of Los Angeles also included an extra
Mitigation Fund Container Fee of $ 30 per TEU if the China Shipping
Terminal exceeded the 328,000 EIS/EIR TEU's cap per calendar year. The
China Shipping Terminal did exceed the EIS/EIR cap and generated $ 10
million.
In 2005 the Pier Pass Traffic Mitigation Fee (TMF) was established
at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach as an incentive to shift
some container movement to night hours vs day hours to relieve traffic
congestion and truck idling which causing significant air pollution in
harbor communities. A flat fee for daytime container moves at the Ports
of Los Angeles and Long Beach during peak day time hours. The Tariff
was $31.52 per TEU and $ 63.04 for all other TEU Sizes. The TMF reached
high of $ 72.09 TEU in 2018. PierPass was in response to a stern
warning from the California Legislature in 2003 to either mitigate
port-caused traffic congestion in Los Angeles-Long Beach or the
legislature would impose a solution.
In 2006 Proposition 1B the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air
Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, is approved by California
voters and authorizes the Legislature to appropriate $1 billion in bond
funding to the California Air Resources Board to reduce air pollution
emissions and health risks from freight movement along California's
priority trade corridors. Approximately $200 million is allocated every
year.
In 2006 the California Air Resources Board approves the Cap & Trade
Program under Assembly Bill (AB) 32 the Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006 which allows the purchasing of air pollution credits to mitigate
greenhouse gas environment impacts. Over $ 12 billion has been raised
since 2012 by California and over $ 250 million annually allocated for
public and freight transportation. Funds support zero emission, near
zero emission, emission capture & treatment technologies and energy
efficiency programs.
In 2007 the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach establish a Clean
Truck Fund as part of the newly adopted Clean Air Action Plan. A tariff
of $ 35 per TEU would be assessed on every loaded container entering or
leaving the Ports by drayage truck beginning June 1, 2008.
In 2007 environmental organizations, homeowner associations and
residents opposed the Port of Los Angeles TraPac Container Terminal
Expansion Project for failing to adequately mitigation all community
impacts. The threat of another public environmental lawsuit forced the
Port of Los Angeles into a pre-court settlement. The settlement MOU
included a Mitigation Fund Container Fee of $ 3.50 per TEU, $1.50 PX or
0.15 Per Ton of Cargo for the projected 1,497,142 EIS/EIR TEU's cap per
calendar year.
In 2011 the California Air Resources Board approves the Cap & Trade
Program under AB 32 the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 which
allows the sales and purchasing of air pollution credits to mitigate
greenhouse gas environment impacts. Over $ 12 billion has been raised
since 2012 by California and over $ 250 million annually allocated for
public and freight transportation. Funds support zero emission, near
zero emission, emission capture & treatment technologies and energy
efficiency programs.
In 2015 Senate Bill (SB) 513 was approved providing new
opportunities for the Program to contribute significant emission
reductions alongside implemented regulations, advance zero and near-
zero technologies, and combine program funds with those of other
incentive programs.
In 2017 AB 617 Nonvehicular Air Pollution: Criteria Air Pollutants
and Toxic Air Contaminants is approved requiring the reduction of
emissions of toxic air contaminants and criteria pollutants in
communities affected by a high cumulative exposure burden. Over $ 245
million is allocated annually for mitigating mobile sources and
stationary sources.
Sample Federal Grant Funding Programs:
U.S. Dept. of Energy--The Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO)
supports high impact projects that can significantly advance its
mission to develop more energy efficient and environmentally friendly
highway transportation technologies that enable America to use less
petroleum.
U.S. Dept. of Transportation--Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act or FAST Act--Fostering Advancements in Shipping and
Transportation for the Long-term Achievement of National Efficiencies,
or FASTLANE, grant program.
9. Homeland Security
No dependence on fossil fuels using Electric Battery and Hydrogen
Fuel Cell Power Zero Emission Technologies.
In conclusion, we can provide detailed information, studies and
reports on all available zero emissions and emissions capture and
treatment technologies. We can also provide introductions to many of
the new emerging technology companies.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jesse N. Marquez,
Executive Director, Coalition For A Safe Environment.
Appendix
----------
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Joshua Berger, Governor's
Maritime Sector Lead, Washington State Department of Commerce
Question 1. Reports of emerging environmental, climate, and health
impacts of black carbon produced by current ``alternative'' fuels like
LNG indicate that the full transition away from LNG-powered
transportation may be a critical step to ensure a livable future on
earth. What are the necessary steps to transition our marine
transportation system toward 100 percent clean energy sources?
Answer. It is well established within the maritime transportation
industry and its supply chain that LNG is a growing ``transition'' fuel
seeking to bridge the gap from today's typical emission profile towards
a 100% clean energy, zero-emission future. Investments are being made
in order to meet current international regulations and significantly
limit other emissions like NOx, SOx and diesel particulate matter,
particularly in disproportionately low-income communities of color.
However, it is also accepted that this is not a long-term solution to
get to zero-emissions and many believe that investing in the
infrastructure necessary for LNG will prolong the necessary investment
in R&D and solutions for a 100% clean energy future.
In my opinion, the steps necessary to get towards a 100% clean
energy future and zero-emission transportation include:
Establish and invest in current infrastructure known to
support zero-emission fuels. For example, developing an electrical grid
that can support the types of loads necessary to electrify inland and
short sea shipping as well as cold ironing for deep-sea vessels, cruise
ships, etc. This would include ways to produce zero-emission fuels in
the future like hydrogen and/or ammonia fuel cells and a distinct look
at how existing infrastructure can support future alternatives. These
infrastructure investments would need to look systemically along the
working waterfront and be part of a deliberate and strategic approach
to decarbonization.
Invest in a coordinated approach to R&D and
commercialization of zero-emission solutions within the federal
enterprise. There is a nascent but effective group being led by the US
Department of Energy to coordinate with other relevant agencies,
departments and offices where R&D is underway seeking to address
alignment and support of industry's direction. The Blue Economy spans
across many federal agency interests and areas of responsibility. If
there is a centralized place, or group that could facilitate federal
investment and strategy for R&D this would drastically scale our
effectiveness and ability to find solutions. One example being
discussed is the revival of the National Oceanographic Partnership
Program (NOPP) \1\ which could be resourced and expanded to include the
breadth of the Blue Economy, including maritime transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Oceanographic Partnership Program, https://
www.nopp.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Empower the US maritime industry by leading the global
maritime community at the IMO, UN and other intergovernmental forums.
For example, the proposal put forward by the World Shipping Council and
several other industry associations to establish an IMO backed R&D fund
would be a significant step towards what is needed on a global scale to
find zero-emission solutions and the infrastructure needs to support
them \2\. The US has an important voice at the IMO and could
increasingly engage the global maritime and ocean economy at the UN
level to be part of the solution. This would send a leadership signal
to the US maritime industry that we are engaged and want to lead the
work in this major maritime transformation underway. So far, we are not
leading this effort and are lagging behind both Europe and Asia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ World Shipping Council Proposal to IMO-MPEC for R&D Fund,
http://www.worldshipping.org/public-statements/regulatory-comments/
MEPC_75-7-4_-_Proposal_
to_establish_anInternational_Maritime_Research_and_Development_Board_-
IMRB-_-ICS_BIMCO_CLIA_INTERCA...-_18_Dec_2019.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support the efforts of regional innovation clusters. At a
local scale, the maritime and ocean supply chain of operators,
technology developers, and designers are engaging with state and local
governments, research institutions, entrepreneurs, investors and
community groups to accelerate innovation. These formal organizations
are drawing participation and collaboration to manage successful
demonstration projects, deploy private and public capital, and develop
new technology. All other world-class maritime regions are investing in
these ``innovation ecosystem builders'' to lead these efforts. Norway,
France, Portugal, England, Singapore, Dubai, and others have a national
system of innovation clusters supported, at least in part, by
government. Just now the US is starting to recognize the role of these
cluster organizations, incubators and accelerators. The recent Build to
Scale Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), a partnership between the
Economic Development Administration and the Department of Energy, to
support the Blue Economy is a tremendous start \3\. We would hope this
would be an ongoing commitment to supporting the underlying operational
needs of this activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ US Commerce Economic Development Administration FY2021 Build to
Scale Funding Opportunity, https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-
opportunity.html?oppId=324375
Question 2. What strategies is Washington state using to reach its
zero-emission by 2030 goal? Please send a list of the technologies
being deployed across the fleet.
Answer. Washington state owns and operates the largest ferry system
in the United States and is committed to convert the entire fleet of 25
vessels and 20 terminals to electric and hybrid-electric operations by
2040 \4\. We are starting with the conversion of our largest vessels
and starting a 5-vessel newbuild program of another class. The
conversion of our largest vessels and largest polluters is from diesel
electric to diesel/battery hybrid. These are 200 + vehicle ferries
designed to run at 90% zero-emission with the appropriate charging
infrastructure at the terminals. Washington State Ferries also use a
B20 blend of biodiesel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Washington State Ferries 2040 Long Range Plan, https://
www.wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2019/01/07/WSF-2040-Long-Range-
Plan-2019.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other public (local municipality transit and ferry districts) and
private operators of ferries are utilizing both hybrid-electric systems
and designing all-electric systems, with both battery and fuel cell
technology being explored. Electric and hybrid solutions are
competitive for ferry, short sea and inland vessel operations where
charging infrastructure can be deployed to support operations.
Washington state is also investing in electrification of cargo
terminals at our major gateways through the state's VW mitigation
settlement. A portion of these funds, along with state capital dollars,
are being used to support port investments to provide cold ironing at
container and cruise terminals. As well, the state administers the
Clean Energy Fund, a competitive grant program for electrification of
transportation, including for maritime applications.
Other fuel technologies I am aware of that are being researched or
developed throughout the private commercial fleet in Washington
include: biodiesel, biogas, LNG, LNG/battery hybrid, hydrogen fuel
cell, hydrogen injection w/diesel, and ammonia fuel cell.
Washington based design, architecture and construction firms are
developing more efficient hull designs and materials to increase
efficiency for alternative, zero-emission options like foiling for high
speed passenger ferries.
Washington has also become a center for battery/energy storage
design and development both for on-board as well as supporting
shoreside charging. There are new marine specific battery companies in
Washington state. One is working on commercializing a solid-state
lithium ion battery to be completely manufactured in the US. Others are
bringing new technologies, chemistries, cooling and management systems
as the market for marine batteries continues to exponentially grow.
Question 3. What work has the Washington Maritime Blue cluster done
to operationalize alternative fuels and energy sources with the
smallest greenhouse gas emission impact?
Answer. As an independent non-profit, cluster organization,
Washington Maritime Blue operates on a number of levels to support
alternative fuels and zero-emission solutions to meet the State's
strategy goals for deep-decarbonization. They include:
Marketing and communications for our members and the
growing center of excellence in our region, particularly around
electrification.
Knowledge sharing events, called Blue Forums, that bring
together hundreds of stakeholders on key topics such as maritime energy
solutions, digitalization, battery safety, etc.
Managing Joint Innovation Projects to achieve
demonstration and/or commercialization of new technology and
collaborative R&D. For Example; managing members and funding mechanisms
to design, construct and support operations of a zero-emission fast
foil ferry for Puget Sound passenger service.
Administer a partnership between service providers,
educational institutions, and employers to make maritime an accessible
option for low-income youth and youth of color to create a 21st century
maritime workforce.
Attract various forms of investment and funding to
demonstration projects and entrepreneurs working on solutions for the
blue economy and decarbonization of maritime transportation.
Develop and manage a Blue Innovation Accelerator for
young companies working on solutions to achieve our state's Strategy
for the Blue Economy and building a Maritime Innovation Center to be a
hub for our region's growth as a center of excellence.
Question 4. How have you collaborated with shore infrastructure
operators (i.e., ports, marine terminals, fuel suppliers) to source
fuels? What challenges arose, and what federal support can enable
further successful implementation?
Answer. Incorporating technology and infrastructure development on
shore is key to successful deployment of technology on board vessels as
well as the ability to reduce impact of vessels at berth and shoreside
operations. A number of projects are underway to further implement:
Washington State Department of Ecology is administering a
grant program utilizing VW Settlement dollars, a portion of which is
slated for marine terminal electrification adding cold ironing capacity
as well as terminal equipment.
Washington State Department of Commerce is working with a
major bio/renewable fuel producer to expand operations and production
in the state for both aviation and marine fuels.
Washington Maritime Blue is leading a team in a grant
application to bring renewable hydrogen production to a major port in
Washington that would be used for marine/maritime applications
including terminal equipment and local rail.
Washington Maritime Blue is supporting technology
supplier input to standardization of charging technology for ferry
operations.
Washington Maritime Blue is working with several digital/
tech companies and terminal operators to increase efficiency for
terminal movements, drayage, and just in-time arrivals seeking to
decarbonize up to 30% through efficiencies, tracking and incentives
alone.
Washington Maritime Blue is working with a team to
produce a decarbonization strategy for Seattle's working waterfront
along with the Port of Seattle, Seattle City Light (the utility),
terminal operators, owners and tenants.
One of the largest challenges that has arisen for us working to
develop shore-side infrastructure is how to best engage with the
utility. They are often supportive but either the technology or rate-
based systems that are in place seemingly limit the economic viability
of large electrification projects. However, we have found that working
collectively we can find ways to make the economics work to look for
solutions like micro-grid technology, new rate systems, energy storage
and renewable energy production. With the leadership of Governor
Inslee, we now have new Clean Energy Transition policies passed in 2019
that incentivize the public and private utilities to transition to
renewables and gain credits for supporting electrification of
transportation systems. Finding federal mechanism to incentivize
utilities to modernize and account for the large increase of
electrification in all sectors will be essential to scale these types
of projects.
Another challenge is the ability to permit and complete large
industrial projects. Not only are there challenges protecting maritime
industrial lands in a fast-growing region, but gaining social license
for industrial projects, even if the end use is to reduce/eliminate
emissions. Many of these are state, local and stakeholder issues--
however there has been a lack of consistency and predictability when it
comes to federal permitting of infrastructure projects. For example,
there is still no clear standard accounting for greenhouse gasses in
NEPA nor is there consistency or clear federal to state standards for
the 401/404 water quality permit from the application process to
decision making. This makes it very challenging for developers and
operators who work with very small margins to weigh the cost/benefit of
approaching large scale projects, especially those along the
waterfront. Washington state is proud of our high environmental
standards, we believe these are not unsurmountable. However, it is
critical that permitting and regulatory bodies provide consistency and
predictability for developers to plan the very large capital
investments necessary to decarbonize maritime transportation and power
a clean economy.
Additionally, as stated above, having R&D and infrastructure
dollars that are distinctly available for maritime energy solutions and
coordinated across multiple federal agencies and departments is
critical. Many of these solutions are ready to plan and build, some
need further testing to scale. There are some examples that can be used
as models, including the Department of Energy's H2@Scale grant program
\5\ where maritime applications are a specific category. Other areas
could be adding maritime decarbonization criteria to BUILD grants and
other port and infrastructure funding mechanisms through US DOT and
MARAD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ US Department of Energy H2@Scale Program, https://
www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/h2scale
Question 5. What would it take to advance the US position in the
clean maritime industry and totally decarbonize our maritime sector?
Answer. Many of the steps necessary to decarbonize the maritime
sector are outlined above. That there will not likely be a single
solution makes it challenging to fully account. However, global
estimates put the scale of investment at $1 trillion \6\. If the US was
able to commit and dedicate a certain amount of relative investment
with coordinated leadership our position would be significantly
advanced. Much like the role of a cluster organization for a local or
regional maritime cluster the US would need a central organizing and
coordinating office to bridge and leverage the appropriate agencies
across the federal enterprise. Again, the NOPP is already set up to
handle that sort of role if resourced and directed appropriately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ UMAS/Energy Transitions Commission study for the Global
Maritime Forum: Getting to Zero Coalition, https://
www.globalmaritimeforum.org/press/new-analysis-puts-a-price-tag-on-
maritime-shippings-decarbonization
Question 6. The International Council on Clean Transportation
reports that over 59,000 people died from effects of shipping emissions
in 2015, and the ongoing effects of port activity on local
communities--disproportionately low-income communities of color--
include asthma and other chronic illnesses. What steps has the Office
of Maritime taken to mitigate these impacts?
Answer. Addressing the disproportionality of affected communities
by climate impacts is a top priority for Governor Inslee and is part of
the criteria for decision making in all appropriate state agencies.
Related to maritime transportation:
The Washington State Department of Ecology has set
criteria to prioritize electrification projects that receive funding
with dollars from the VW settlement account. The process looks at NOx,
SOx and diesel particulate matter reductions in relation to
economically stressed census tracts. This heavily weights
electrification projects in and around port industrial areas due to
heavy emissions from shipping and vessel activity. ``Using data from
the Washington Tracking Network's `Diesel Pollution and
Disproportionate Impact', we identified communities that have
historically borne a disproportionate share of the diesel air pollution
burden. These priority communities have high-traffic transportation
corridors and urban population centers, ports, and industrial
facilities that can be sources of diesel air pollution, so they provide
the greatest opportunity for Washington to achieve its mitigation plan
principles and priorities'' \7\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Washington State Department of Ecology VW Federal Enforcement
Action, https://ecology.wa.gov/Air-Climate/Air-quality/Vehicle-
emissions/Volkswagen-enforcement-action/VW-federal-enforcement-action
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington State Department of Commerce-Energy
Division, manages the state's Clean Energy Fund which competitively
awards clean energy projects in various sectors and programs. The
recently released Electrification of Transportation Systems Program \8\
heavily weights projects that reduce impacts in disproportionality
affected communities using the same health disparity data referenced
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Washington State Department of Commerce's Electrification of
Transportation Systems Program, https://www.commerce.wa.gov/growing-
the-economy/energy/clean-energy-fund/electrification-of-transportation/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question from Hon. Anthony G. Brown to Joshua Berger, Governor's
Maritime Sector Lead, Washington State Department of Commerce
Question 1. In your opinion, what policy actions can Congress take
to ensure that the Department of Defense's investment in blue carbon
capture technology is accessible and leveraged by the commercial
maritime industry?
Answer. It has been, and will continue to be, a critical connection
between the nation's Department of Defense and commercial-industrial
sectors in order to leverage investments in projects like blue carbon
capture, and others. As well, we need to insure there continues to be
effective mechanisms to leverage innovation in the commercial sector to
support the needs of DOD--like the Small Business Innovation Research
(SBIR) program and others.
Washington State's military and defense sector is a critical
component to our state's economy. ``As the second largest public
employer in Washington employing more than 127,000 active duty,
reserve, guard and civilian personnel, home to over 540,000 veterans
including 71,000 retirees and 88,674 military families; Washington's
military and defense community supports over $13 billion dollars in
annual procurement supported by nearly 2,000 businesses across the
state, representing nearly 3% of the state's GDP'' \9\. This impact is
closely linked to our maritime sector in particular due to the Puget
Sound Naval Shipyard, the Naval Base Everett, the Naval Submarine Base
Bangor, and the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division Keyport. A Navy
program that was created to support technology transfer and we are
working directly with is NavalX-NW Tech Bridge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Washington State Department of Commerce Industry Sector
Development Program, https://www.commerce.wa.gov/growing-the-economy/
key-sectors/military-defense/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Northwest (NW) Tech Bridge was the result of an alignment of many
factors. As the Department of the Navy identified its need to develop
new technology and partnerships at scale, the Washington State
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), Impact, simultaneously
engaged with a group of stakeholders from the Washington State maritime
sector, industry and academia to increase capabilities of the
Washington maritime industry. These initiatives, coupled with
Washington's multi-million dollar investment in local innovation
centers, culminated in very fertile ground for collaboration on
national Navy challenges.
Our NW Tech Bridge will identify a low-barrier off-base facility to
support rapid collaboration, workshops, and problem-solving events
nearby in Kitsap County. Naval Undersea Warfare Center Keyport is
working on a contractual agreement that will allow for day-to-day
collaboration on problems with industry and academia in a physical
collision space. Extensive academic and industry collaboration already
occurs within the state with our top tier research and training
institutions such as Washington State University (WSU), University of
Washington (UW) and UW Tacoma, Western Washington University, and
Olympic College. Leveraging these relationships are critical to the
success of NW Tech Bridge and the Navy'' \10\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ NavalX-NW Tech Bridge, https://www.secnav.navy.mil/agility/
Pages/tb_northwest.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to John W. Butler, President and
Chief Executive Officer, World Shipping Council
Question 1. Reports of emerging environmental, climate, and health
impacts of black carbon produced by current ``alternative'' fuels like
LNG indicate that the full transition away from LNG-powered
transportation may be a critical step to ensure a livable future on
earth. What are the necessary steps to transition our marine
transportation system toward 100 percent clean energy sources?
Answer. To transition the maritime transportation system to clean
energy sources requires an intensive and dedicated research and
development effort that is specifically focused on evaluating what
combination of clean fuels and technologies are feasible for
application in the commercial maritime sector. While tremendous strides
have been made in the development of low carbon and zero emission
technologies in the on-road sector, the level of research, development,
and related activities devoted to developing zero-emission fuels and
technologies designed for use in the commercial maritime sector is very
limited with many projects focused on small ferries and other vessels
with modest power requirements.
Recognizing this challenge, the World Shipping Council (``WSC'' or
``the Council''), together with a number of other maritime industry
organizations, has submitted a detailed proposal to the International
Maritime Organization (IMO) that calls for establishment of an
International Maritime Research and Development Board (IMRB) whose
purpose would be to undertake the necessary research to develop and
introduce zero-emission ships (including systems appropriate for large
transoceanic ships) as soon as possible. The proposal also includes a
legally binding funding mechanism that would generate roughly 5 billion
USD from ocean carriers over a ten-year period. WSC believes this
action is a critical step in developing the technical pathways for the
introduction of low-carbon and zero-emission ships. The proposal
submitted to the IMO is included in my written testimony provided in
advance of the January 14 hearing.
Question 2. What strategies is the Council using to reach the IMO
emission reduction targets? Please send a list of the technologies
being deployed across the fleet.
Answer. WSC and its members are working with a large number of
governments, the IMO Secretariat, environmental organizations, and
other interested parties to gather support for the proposed IMRB
(discussed in Item 1) as well as other measures currently under
development at the IMO. A short indicative list of technologies
currently being used to significantly reduce emissions of sulphur, NOx,
PM, CO2, black carbon, and other air emissions include:
Use of low-sulphur fuels (both within Emission Control
Areas and on a global scale);
Use of exhaust gas cleaning systems (EGCS);
The introduction of new, more fuel-efficient ship designs
that have led to significant improvements in the fuel efficiency of
container ships and vehicle carriers with many of the larger container
ships improving their design efficiency in excess of 45%;
Trials in the use of biofuels in a number of ships; and
The conversion of many container ships to utilize shore-
side power in California and other locations where connections are
available.
Question 3. What alternative fuels and energy sources will have the
smallest greenhouse gas emission impact? What work have your members
done to operationalize the use of those fuels?
Answer. Notable uncertainty still surrounds the question of what
fuels offer the greatest potential to reach near-zero carbon emissions
in the commercial maritime sector, but ammonia and hydrogen are two of
the more promising fuels, if produced using renewable energy such as
solar. Some small-scale demonstrations of hydrogen and battery
applications have been undertaken on small vessels with very limited
power requirements. The greatest technical challenges lie with
identifying what fuels and technology systems may prove feasible for
large transoceanic ships that have very large power demands (e.g.,
engine power capabilities of 30,000-80,000 kW) and need to sail
distances measured in thousands of miles between refueling.
The proposal to establish an IMRB is designed to devote
considerable effort not only in exploring the different fuel and
technology configurations necessary that can be applied in the maritime
fleet (including large transoceanic ships), but to develop and test
shipboard prototypes and to explore shore-to-ship fuel infrastructure
protypes for the most promising fuels and technology systems.
To operationalize the use of these fuels requires intensive
technical research and development work and prototype development. This
type of work exceeds the capability of any single company or probably
any single government. Consequently, WSC and other industry
organizations have worked for roughly two years to develop the IMRB
proposal to the IMO.
Question 4. How has the industry collaborated with shore
infrastructure operators (i.e., ports, marine terminals, fuel
suppliers) to source fuels? What challenges arose, and what government
support enabled successful implementation?
Answer. Experience in this area to date is largely relevant to use
of LNG and the use of shore-side auxiliary power in California ports.
In the case of LNG use, WSC member companies have developed direct fuel
supplier relationships in specific ports where specialized arrangements
have been made for delivery of LNG to ships (often truck-to-ship
transfers). The support of the U.S. Coast Guard and local port
authorities has been critical to establish the necessary protocols and
standards to ensure safe handling of the fuel.
In the case of shore-side auxiliary power, the overwhelming
majority of experience falls in California where fleet requirements
apply to container ship operators visiting California ports. The
introduction of shore-side electrical infrastructure with adequate
connection vaults is an extremely challenging, costly, and complicated
undertaking. California has provided a test case for the numerous
technical and regulatory challenges that accompany such rules and the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) is currently considering a series
of major amendments (including expansion of the program to other ship
types) to the existing California at-berth power requirements.
WSC has been working closely with CARB as they move forward with
these amendments and we believe the revised regulations should produce
better results as legal obligations are proposed to be established for
terminals and ports to provide the necessary infrastructure and to
ensure connections are made to visiting vessels in a timely manner. Any
state or locality considering shore-side power requirements should
carefully study the experience and lessons learned in California.
Question 5. What would it take to comprehensively and sustainably
advance the US position in the clean maritime industry and totally
decarbonize our maritime sector?
Answer. Totally decarbonizing the commercial maritime sector will
require the development of zero-carbon fuels and technology systems
specifically designed for the unique requirements of large transoceanic
ships and a broad array of ship types with specific operational
demands. This will require an intensive examination of fuel density
characteristics, materials science, the potential for green production,
and the development of specific systems that meet the demands of ships
that transit long distances before refueling. We believe that the
proposed establishment of an IMRB is critical to achieving this
objective (see also the response to question 1).
Question 6. Shore power technology has the potential to virtually
eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from maritime vessels while at
berth, put upfront capital expenditure has deterred operators from
investing in such infrastructure.
Comment from Mr. Butler. It should be noted that shore power
technology only eliminates GHG emissions for ships at berth if the
electricity supplied is itself ``green power.'' If the power plant
generating the electricity is producing GHG emissions, emissions are in
most cases reduced (depending on the fuel used), but not eliminated.
The most significant air quality benefits of shore power are generally
associated with the reduction of NOx and PM in the port area, and these
emissions are the primary reasons that shore power has been pursued in
California.
a. What sorts of incentives and supports could help promote at-
berth electrification for your members' vessels?
Answer. While retrofitting and equipping ships with shore power
capability is expensive, the most complicated and expensive investments
involve the provision of electrical infrastructure in the port and
terminals. This requires extensive consideration of what the most
efficient and cost-effective design is for electrical sub-stations
throughout the port as well as the location and construction of
electrical vaults that will enable visiting ships to connect as
planned.
For some ship types, such as transoceanic vehicle carriers that
visit a given port on a very infrequent basis (e.g., some vehicle
carriers may visit a given port once or twice in a two to three year
period), a system that uses shore-based emission capture technology
instead of shore-based electrical connections may prove more practical
and cost effective as an emission reduction strategy.
b. What sorts of collaboration and coordination are necessary to
ensure international operators can plug in to an electric grid here and
abroad? What are the advantages of that approach?
Answer. Years of experience in California has demonstrated that an
effective at-berth emission program (whether that is electrification or
emission capture) requires extensive shore-side planning and
coordination between the port authority, terminals, ship operators, and
regulatory authorities. The experience in California has also
demonstrated that an effective at-berth program requires that
definitive obligations be placed on shore-side entities and not only on
visiting ships. Failure to do so can result in a situation where shore-
power equipped vessels are unable to connect to shore-side power due to
inadequate shore-side infrastructure and insufficient incentives or
requirements to ensure timely connection of the vessel. Any program
also needs to ensure that the relevant electrical power and connection
requirements are fully consistent with international standards.
Question 7. The International Council on Clean Transportation
reports that over 59,000 people died from effects of shipping emissions
in 2015, and the ongoing effects of port activity on local
communities--disproportionately low-income communities of color--
include asthma and other chronic illnesses. What steps has the Office
of Maritime taken to mitigate these impacts?
Answer. To effectively mitigate these impacts, port authorities and
relevant regulatory bodies need to consider a suite of actions that
look at the overall movement of goods in and out of the port and the
efficiency of inter-modal transfers. The availability of rail
transportation in the port, the use of clean fuels and technology in
drayage operations, and emissions from truck traffic, locomotives, and
ships need to be examined as a whole. In short, more efficient movement
of cargo in and out of the port area results in reduced emissions and
improved air quality.
The North American Emission Control Area (ECA) established through
the IMO in 2012 has reduced sulphur content in marine fuels from a
maximum of 3.5% m/m to 0.10% m/m. This regulatory action has resulted
in dramatic reductions of both SOx and PM emissions generated by ships
visiting U.S. ports and transiting within 200 miles of the Atlantic,
Pacific, and Gulf Coasts (specific coordinates are provided in Appendix
VII of MARPOL Annex VI). On 1 January 2020 the IMO also lowered the
maximum sulphur content of marine fuels used outside of emission
control areas from a maximum of 3.50% m/m to 0.50% m/m. Both actions
are expected to result in significant air quality benefits and
reductions in estimated premature deaths in the United States and
across the world.
Question from Hon. Anthony G. Brown to John W. Butler, President and
Chief Executive Officer, World Shipping Council
Question 1. In your opinion, what policy actions can Congress take
to ensure that the Department of Defense's investment in blue carbon
capture technology is accessible and leveraged by the commercial
maritime industry?
Answer. DOD's investment in blue carbon technology is an
interesting area of technology development. If these research efforts
lead to technologies that are appropriate and cost-effective for
application in the commercial maritime sector, we would be interested
in following such developments. At this point we do not have enough
information to know whether this is a promising approach that could be
applicable to commercial applications.
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to B. Lee Kindberg, Ph.D., Head of
Environment and Sustainability-North America, Maersk
Question 1. What strategies is Maersk using to reach its zero-
emission by 2030 goal? Please send a list of the technologies being
deployed across the fleet.
Answer. Over the last decade Maersk has reduced our fuel consumed
and related emissions by 42% per container moved. This energy
efficiency improvement was achieved in three primary ways: new larger,
highly efficient vessels, significant retrofits of our existing
vessels, and improved operational and vessel management practices.
Retrofits to our existing vessels include optimizing propulsion systems
and bulbous bows, engine modifications, and elevating the bridge and
lashing racks to carry more cargo on the same vessel.
In December 2018 Maersk announced a goal of Net Zero Carbon
Shipping by 2050. More near-term goals are to launch our first zero
carbon vessel by 2030, and to continue our energy efficiency work with
a 2030 goal of a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions vs. 2008.
To achieve these goals we are investing in a range of new
innovative fuel and technology programs, and are piloting other
technologies such as installation of a large marine battery. We will
continue implementation of the radical retrofit program mentioned above
and continue improving planning and optimizing of our networks and
operations. We also maturing, hardening and fully implementing the
innovative digitalization Connected Vessel program. This program is
connecting our fleet digitally with our global operations coordination
centers and enables real-time optimization of operational conditions. A
brief video with more information is available at https://www.bing.com/
videos/search?q=youtube+maersk+zero+carbon&view
=detail&mid=1081847AE8FF0279FA751081847AE8FF0279FA75&FORM=VIRE.
Question 2. What alternative fuels and energy sources will have the
smallest greenhouse gas emission impact? What work has Maersk done to
operationalize the use of those fuels?
Answer. In October 2019 we published a study together with Lloyds
Register where we openly shared what we see as the three best option to
Decarbonize ocean shipping: Alcohols (biofuels/LEO etc.), Biogas and
Ammonia. We are also following developments in fuel cells and
Biofuels can have no ``tailpipe'' CO2 emissions, reducing the
lifecycle CO2 footprint to the levels required to produce and transport
the fuel (comparable to ``well to wheel'' metrics for conventional
fuels). Our work on innovative biofuels includes a Lignin Ethanol Oil
project, and the new Maersk ECO Delivery product.
Question 3. How has Maersk collaborated with shore infrastructure
operators (i.e., ports, marine terminals, fuel suppliers) to source
fuels? What challenges arose, and what government support enabled
successful implementation?
Answer. At this time the fuels needed have been available through
our traditional suppliers, with whom we have worked closely for many
years (especially for the successful implementation of the IMO 2020
fuel program). Shore power/electrification has required close
cooperation with marine terminals and ports in California for over 10
years to ensure vessel and shore-side infrastructure are compatible and
aligned. Continued communication and cooperation are needed for ongoing
shore power operations.
For future fuels, the shore side need will be driven by the fuel
types selected--their physical properties and any possible fuel
handling risks identified. Clearly cooperation with shippers and ports
will be essential, and time and investment needed to enable
implementation. As an example, the Port of Rotterdam was one of the
core partners in our first biofuel trial in April-May 2019.
Question 4. What would it take to advance the US position in the
clean maritime industry and totally decarbonize our maritime sector?
Answer. Global action is required to address the challenges of
decarbonizing international shipping. Mr. Butler of the World Shipping
Council, who also spoke to the Subcommittee hearing on this topic, may
be an excellent resource on policies to advance decarbonization.
Question 5. Shore power technology has the potential to virtually
eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from maritime vessels while at
berth, put upfront capital expenditure has deterred operators from
investing in such infrastructure.
a. What sorts of incentives and supports could help promote at-
berth electrification for Maersk vessels?
b. What sorts of collaboration and coordination are necessary to
ensure international operators can plug in to an electric grid here and
abroad? What are the advantages of that approach?
Answer (a.-b.). The investment required for shore power is indeed
significant, both on vessels and the land side. In addition, like other
electrification programs, the benefit of shore power is dependent on
availability of plentiful electricity from clean sources. Only
California has made the enormous investment required to provide both
shore power infrastructure and to green their electric grid.
Even in California shore power is only in use for container, cruise
and refrigerated cargo in five ports. And some of these ports do not
have sufficient off-port electrical power supply or on-port
infrastructure to enable full use of this technology. Other types of
vessels and ports (e.g., tankers, vehicle carriers and bulk cargo
ships) do not yet have shore power capability. Some US military
installations do have shore power capability.
While there is an international ISO/IEEE standard for shore power
it may need updates to serve a broader range of vessel types and
cargos. This standardization is essential for international
compatibility. Technical and operational challenges also still impede
full use of shore power, including aligning connections for vessel and
shore as vessel sizes change, congestion, and challenges with equipment
reliability in the ocean salt environment. Close cooperation between
ports, marine terminals, vessel owners and operators and regulatory
agencies is important for this implementation, and to date public
funding has been required for broad implementation.
Question 6. The International Council on Clean Transportation
reports that over 59,000 people died from effects of shipping emissions
in 2015, and the ongoing effects of port activity on local
communities--disproportionately low-income communities of color--
include asthma and other chronic illnesses. What steps can we take
today to mitigate these impacts?
Answer. Since 2015 a number of measures have been implemented to
reduce the environmental impacts of ports in the US. The North American
Emissions Control Area (ECA) is a 200-mile band around the US and
Canada where cleaner fuel has been required since 2012. In 2015 the ECA
fuel sulfur limit stepped down from 1.0% sulfur to 0.1%S, reducing
emissions of sulfur oxides by an additional 90%, and also reducing
related fine particles significantly. In January 2020 the global fuel
sulfur limit changed from 3.5% to 0.5%. IMO and the North American ECA
also set requirements for engines to produce fewer oxides of nitrogen
(NOx). These requirements will continue to phase in as new vessels
replace older ones, continuing to reduce emissions from the global
fleet for the next decades.
Other steps being taken in some ports include incentive programs
for voluntary vessel speed reductions and encouraging deployment of
newer lower-emitting vessels. On the land side, cargo handling
equipment can be electrified, incentive programs help implement newer
lower-emitting trucks sooner, and shore power can reduce emissions if
electric power is from clean or renewable sources.
Question 7. Has Maersk invested in any of the following existing
zero-emission technologies: Electric Ship-to-Shore (STS) Rail-Mounted
Gantry Cranes, Electric Rubber-Tired Gantry (RTG) Cranes, Electric
Rail-Mounted Gantry Cranes, Electric Bulk Handling Crane, Carry Deck
Cranes, Reach Stackers, Shuttle Carriers, Straddle Carriers, Trailer
Spreaders, Electric Forklifts, Electric Pallet Trucks, or Top Front End
Payloaders?
Answer. Our sister company APM Terminals has invested in several of
these technologies in their US and global facilities.
Question from Hon. Anthony G. Brown to B. Lee Kindberg, Ph.D., Head of
Environment and Sustainability-North America, Maersk
Question 1. In your opinion, what policy actions can Congress take
to ensure that the Department of Defense's investment in blue carbon
capture technology is accessible and leveraged by the commercial
maritime industry?
Answer. I was not familiar with the DoD's blue carbon capture
technology. Carbon capture is certainly of interest for all large
energy users, and we will seek further information on this capability.
Transparency and collaboration between military and civilian industry
are important in technology transfer, and we would be interested in
discussing such potentials further.
Question from Hon. Carol D. Miller to B. Lee Kindberg, Ph.D., Head of
Environment and Sustainability-North America, Maersk
Question 1. It is impressive that MAERSK has reduced their fuel
consumption by over 40 percent in the last decade. As we enter a new
decade, what progress do you expect the industry to make over the next
ten years?
Answer. Maersk is continuing our work to dramatically improve
energy efficiency and thus reduce fuel-related emissions. Our 2030 goal
is to have reduced our fuel use and related CO2 emissions by 60%, and
to launch our first carbon neutral vessel. We have committed to Zero
Carbon Shipping by 2050.
Based on results reported annually to the Clean Cargo Working
Group, which do include Maersk's results, the container shipping
industry as a whole has also made impressive progress in emissions
reduction. Since Clean Cargo began publicly reporting data from the
industry in 2009, emissions per container per kilometer have dropped
37.1 percent on average. Maersk and the other members of Clean Cargo
remain committed to continued progress.
The international regulatory structure for emissions reduction is
developing at IMO, with some metrics and goals in place and others
being developed. The IMO website describes these goals as follows
(source: http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/
HotTopics/GHG/Pages/default.aspx):
``In April 2018, IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee
(MEPC) adopted an initial strategy on the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions from ships, setting out a vision to
reduce GHG emissions from international shipping and phase them
out, as soon as possible in this century. The vision confirms
IMO's commitment to reducing GHG emissions from international
shipping and, as a matter of urgency, to phasing them out as
soon as possible.
``More specifically, under the identified ``levels of
ambition'', the initial strategy envisages for the first time a
reduction in total GHG emissions from international shipping
which, it says, should peak as soon as possible and to reduce
the total annual GHG emissions by at least 50% by 2050 compared
to 2008, while, at the same time, pursuing efforts towards
phasing them out entirely. ``The strategy includes a specific
reference to ``a pathway of CO2 emissions reduction consistent
with the Paris Agreement temperature goals''.
``The full text of the Initial IMO Strategy on reduction of GHG
emissions from ships can be downloaded here [https://
unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/
250_IMO%20submission_Talanoa%20Dialogue_April%202018.pdf], . .
.''
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Peter Bryn, Technical Solutions
Manager-North America, ABB Marine and Ports
Question 1. What technologies can help operators meet a zero-
emission by 2030 goal? Please send a list of the technologies you would
consider.
Answer. There are a number of technology options available to ship
owners and operators for reducing or eliminating emissions. It is
critical that ship owners and operators identify the proper solution
for the operational needs of their vessel. For most segments and
technologies, an electric propulsion system is a key enabling
technology. My testimony provides a list of those technologies on page
six and then provides further detail by vessel segment on pages 8-
14.\\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\\ Editors's note: Please see Mr. Bryn's testimony as it
appears at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/PW/PW07/20200114/110356/
HHRG-116-PW07-Wstate-BrynP-20200114.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some vessel segments have more readily available zero emissions
options than others. For example, ferries have become one of the
pioneering vessel types for zero-emission battery deployment because
they combine generally shorter routes with regular port visits. The
shorter routes allow installation of battery packs that can fully power
the vessels on their journeys while the predictable routes and
turnaround times enable efficient deployment of shoreside charging
infrastructure. For these reasons, its unsurprising that the ferry
industry is among the first marine segments to adopt full battery-
electric solutions.
Question 2. How has ABB collaborated with shore infrastructure
operators (i.e., ports, marine terminals, fuel suppliers) to source
fuels and energy? What challenges arose, and what government support
enabled successful implementation?
Answer. ABB provides a number of low and zero emissions
technologies to ports and marine terminals including: electric cranes
and gates, microgrids, energy storage solutions, control systems, and
ship to shore electrical infrastructure. Some examples include: Long
Beach Container Terminal [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIrPWW6r1uo],
and a number of ship to shore projects [https://new.abb.com/
substations/port-electrification-and-shore-to-ship-power]. Emission
reduction policies and targets have played an integral role in
incentivizing low and zero emission technology deployments at ports,
particular for ship to shore connections. Other low and zero emission
solutions like electric port operations (gates, cranes, vehicles)
benefit from government policies focused on lower emissions as well as
funding mechanisms to assist owners and operators convert existing
diesel powered systems to electric grid powered systems.
Question 3. What would it take to advance the US position in the
clean maritime industry and totally decarbonize our maritime sector?
Answer. The US could position itself as a leader in the clean
maritime industry by setting clear, national, and ambitious
decarbonization targets for both federal and merchant fleets as well as
providing financial support and incentives for research, development,
and deployment of zero emissions marine technologies, including
shoreside infrastructure for charging and carbon free fuels.
Question 4. The International Council on Clean Transportation
reports that over 59,000 people died from effects of shipping emissions
in 2015, and the ongoing effects of port activity on local
communities--disproportionately low-income communities of color--
include asthma and other chronic illnesses. What steps can we take
today to mitigate these impacts?
Answer. Transitioning to low and zero emissions technology for port
operations, on vessels, and for ship to shore power (cold-ironing), can
reduce or eliminate local emissions. Importantly, low and zero emission
solutions often have strong economic benefits, including increased
container throughput and productivity, and lower maintenance and
operations costs for both vessels and ports. The federal government has
a number of policy tools at its disposal to encourage this transition
that range from setting emission standards to investing in
electrification of port operations and shoreside power for cold-
ironing.
Question 5. What vessels in Federal fleet, particularly those used
the Coast Guard, could see substantial emissions reductions using
existing technology while still meeting mandated use? What federal
programs (existing or not) could facilitate rapid uptake of no/low-
carbon technologies?
Answer. There are a number of Federal Fleet ships that could use
existing technology to reduce their emissions, while also preparing
them for even further reductions as new zero emission technologies are
commercialized over the course of their lifetime. Two types of vessels
that provide near term emission reduction opportunities include: (1)
MARAD National Security Multi-Mission Vessels and (2) Coast Guard
Waterways Commerce Cutters. Other vessel classes that provide
opportunities for emissions reductions include vessels operated by:
National Park Service, US Coast Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, among others.
In the near-term, the Passenger Ferry Grant Program (S.5307) could
facilitate the uptake of commercially ready zero-emission ferries in a
number of ways, including, for example: requiring a certain portion of
grant funding to specifically support zero-emission ferries or
infrastructure; or establishing a zero-emission sub-program similar to
the transit bus low/no program (S.5339c).
Question from Hon. Anthony G. Brown to Peter Bryn, Technical Solutions
Manager-North America, ABB Marine and Ports
Question 1. In your opinion, what policy actions can Congress take
to ensure that the Department of Defense's investment in blue carbon
capture technology is accessible and leveraged by the commercial
maritime industry?
Answer. Blue carbon capture refers to technology to remove CO2
directly from the atmosphere and is in the very early stages of
research and development. A few policy principles could help facilitate
commercial readiness and adoption, including, but not limited to:
Providing consistent, predictable and steady federal
investment over a number of years;
Establishing cross-disciplinary planning, research,
development, and deployment teams;
Involving commercial and private sector advisors,
collaborators, and project partners from the start of the program;
Promoting and fostering cross-agency cooperation,
including: Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Defense, and
others.
Foreword to Responses from Kathy Metcalf, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Chamber of Shipping of America
summary of perspectives of the commercial maritime industry in
providing responses below
While understandably, this hearing focuses on the relationship of
this issue to the US maritime system, it is important to recall that
shipping is global in nature as are the impacts of greenhouse gases
(GHGs) and CO2 emissions. The most robust control mechanisms in one
country will never make up for the lack of control systems in other
countries. Thus the solution to a successful GHG emissions reduction
program must be global in nature, adopted by the International Maritime
Organization's (IMO) Member States and fully implemented by national
governments with jurisdiction over ports (port states), coastal states,
and flag states. In this respect, the ``common but differentiated
responsibilities'' (CBDR) principle applied by the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which distinguishes
between developed and developing countries should have no place in the
development of GHG control mechanisms for global shipping. Rather the
International Maritime Organization's (IMO) ``no more favorable''
treatment principal should apply and thus the IMO should be the lead UN
agency in developing the way forward in addressing GHG emissions from
shipping. It is critical that the US and its fellow IMO Member States
work together to develop a truly global program for GHG emissions
reductions and establish a level playing field for vessels, ports and
coastal states.
The solutions to address the decarbonization of shipping rest with
both governments and the private sector. A good example of private
sector activities is the Global Maritime Forum (GMF) which is founded
on the idea that ``progress happens when people from all parts of a
system--in this case the global maritime industry and its stakeholders
who have the will and the influence to make positive change--come
together to discuss challenges and work together on finding new
solutions''. Its objective is ``to shape the future of global seaborne
trade to increase sustainable long-term economic development and human
wellbeing''. To put the magnitude of this problem and its solution in
perspective, the GMF has estimated that at least USD 1 trillion in
investments will be needed to decarbonize shipping with the major need
for investment upstream in energy and fuel production (87%). For more
information on the GMF, please see their website at https://
www.globalmaritimeforum.org/. For more information on their scale of
investment study, please see https://www.globalmaritimeforum.org/press/
new-analysis-puts-a-price-tag-on-maritime-shippings-decarbonization.
We provide this information to make the point that the research and
development and costs associated with the decarbonization of shipping
and the land-based industries which will support this paradigm change,
is not within the financial bounds of most countries or the industry.
It is however within the bounds of an international collaboration among
all the stakeholders including governments, the shipping industry,
energy producers, ports and environmental organizations. Collaboration
on what is arguably one of the most significant issues of our
generation is critical to execute the transition to the decarbonization
of the shipping industry and all its supporting components.
It is important to realize that not all vessels are the same either
in structure or in operational profiles. To successfully transition, a
number of solutions will likely be identified unique to a particular
type/size of vessel and/or trading patterns, making even more complex,
the ultimate solution for application to the global fleet.
To fully appreciate the commitments the global shipping industry
has made to achieve these goals, the International Chamber of Shipping
(ICS), of which we are a founding member, co-hosted a successful side
event at the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP 25) in mid-December.
During that side event, ICS on behalf of the global shipping industry
stated that ``as shipping's global regulator, the UN International
Maritime Organization has successfully enhanced the sector's impressive
environmental performance through a comprehensive framework of
regulations which enjoy robust enforcement worldwide and this includes
greenhouse gas reduction''. The ICS spokesperson further stated that
``there are already mandatory CO2 reduction regulations in force
globally that will require all ships to be at least 30% more carbon-
efficient by 2025. In line with the ambitious CO2 reduction targets
which IMO Member States agreed last year (2018), the IMO will adopt a
new package of regulations in 2020 with a focus on operational fuel
efficiency and speed optimization. This should ensure further CO2
reductions by 2023 and assure that the sector is on track to exceed the
IMO target of a 40% efficiency improvement across the entire world
fleet by 2030.'' Regarding the ambitious 2050 goal, the ICS
spokesperson stated that ``the industry's greatest priority is to help
the IMO make rapid progress with implementing its very ambitious 2050
target, cutting the sector's total CO2 emissions, regardless of trade
growth, by at least 50%, with full decarbonisation soon after.
Accelerating R&D of zero-carbon technologies and propulsion systems
that can be applied on trans-oceanic ships must therefore be at the
heart of the IMO strategy.''
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Kathy Metcalf, President and
Chief Executive Officer, Chamber of Shipping of America
Question 1. Reports of emerging environmental, climate, and health
impacts of black carbon produced by current ``alternative'' fuels like
LNG indicate that the full transition away from LNG-powered
transportation may be a critical step to ensure a livable future on
earth. What are the necessary steps to transition our marine
transportation system toward 100% clean energy sources?
Answer. The first step towards operationalizing 100% clean energy
sources is the creation of a global R&D program which can identify
alternative fuels both transitional and zero carbon. To date possible
alternatives include electric/battery, hydrogen, green ammonia, and
biofuels. Once the ``possible'' is identified, research needs to be
done to determine the capabilities of ships, port infrastructure and
energy producers to use, produce and distribute fuels on a global
basis. Parallel work to the alternative fuel initiative is identifying
the needed changes to marine propulsion systems and onboard storage
requirements so that reliable and safe systems can be integrated into
new ship design.
Question 2. What strategies is are members of the Chamber using to
reach the IMO emission reduction targets? Please send a list of the
technologies being deployed across the fleet.
Answer. To the best of our knowledge, very few large commercial
ships are able to integrate zero carbon solutions on board their
vessels at this point in time due to the non-availability of zero
carbon fuels and propulsion systems that can utilize these fuels.
Various technologies are being reviewed and in some cases are the
subject of research programs which include application of more
stringent energy efficiency design standards, application of energy
efficiency design concepts to existing ships, mandatory power
limitations on ships, goal based short term reduction measures as part
of the Ship's Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP), strengthening
of the existing SEEMP, and speed optimization. While these examples are
concepts, the technologies associated with implementing some of these
measures are not yet developed or in extreme cases, not yet identified.
An excellent primer on the challenges facing the industry may be found
in the document published by the classification society DNV-GL entitled
``Energy Transition Outlook 2019'' which may be downloaded at https://
eto.dnvgl.com/2018/maritime. Of particular note is the information
found on alternative fuel technology (Chapter 3), fuel flexibility as a
bridge towards low-carbon shipping (Chapter 4) and the ecosystem
approach to bridge the emissions cap (Chapter 5).
Question 3. What alternative fuels and energy sources will have the
smallest greenhouse gas emission impact? What work have your members
done to operationalize the use of those fuels?
Answer. As indicated above, operationalization of lower carbon or
zero carbon fuels on large commercial ships is not yet possible in most
cases due to the nonavailability of the alternative fuels and
propulsion systems designed to use them. Our members, via CSA's
involvement and information sharing with international industry
colleagues and IMO Member States, are reviewing a number of
alternatives for consideration in future new builds which also includes
discussions with governments, the global classification societies and
engine manufacturers. Although much research remains to be done on the
GHG emissions impacts of specific transitional (low carbon) and zero
carbon fuels, current focus is on methanol, LNG/LPG, electrification
(battery hybrid systems), biofuels, hydrogen and ammonia.
Question 4. How have your members collaborated with shore
infrastructure operators (i.e., ports, marine terminals, fuel
suppliers) to source fuels? What challenges arose, and what government
support enabled successful implementation?
Answer. The nature of our members' collaboration with shore
infrastructure varies with the commercial arrangements between vessel
owners and terminal operators and ship types. For example, one of our
member companies own and operate container vessels and own and operate
their terminal facilities in the US. In this case, integration of shore
power (cold ironing) into the port operating profile of their vessels
was facilitated by the fact that both the ship and terminal were owned
and operated by the same entity. In other cases (the majority,) vessels
call at terminals that are not owned by the company which owns the
vessel which makes the implementation of vessel/shore infrastructure
collaboration more difficult especially when taking into account that
ownership of the terminal may range from a private entity to a public
port authority. As regards sourcing of fuels, vessel owners work very
closely with established marine fuel/bunker providers to assure the
availability of compliant fuel (0.1% for use in the emissions control
areas, 0.5% for use outside the emission control areas). Although zero
carbon fuels are not yet available in the global marketplace (nor are
vessels which can utilize these fuels), it would be expected as we
transition to zero carbon fuels, a similar dialogue will occur between
fuel providers and the vessels which will purchase and use these fuels.
CSA as an organization is working with a number of global port
initiatives which are discussing the need for infrastructure to
accommodate both transition fuels and eventually zero-carbon fuels. Two
examples of these collaborative efforts are the World Ports
Sustainability Program (WPSP) and the Global Industry Alliance (GIA).
WPSP is composed of the American Association of Ports Authorities,
the European Sea Ports Organization, the International Association of
Cities and Ports and the World Association for Waterborne Transport
Infrastructure. WSPS is focused on the UN Sustainable Development Goals
by engaging business, governments and societal stakeholders to add
value for local communities and wider regions in which ports are
embedded. More information on this project can be found at https://
sustainableworldports.org/
GIA is an ongoing project overseen by the IMO in partnership with
two other UN agencies and is focusing on the development of public/
private partnerships among key stakeholders including shipowners,
operators, classification societies, engine and technology builders and
suppliers, big data providers, oil companies and ports. More
information on this project can be found at https://glomeep.imo.org/
global-industry-alliance/global-industry-alliance-gia/
Both programs are a result of the recognized need for collaboration
and coordination across all stakeholders to address environmental
issues associated with shipping and ports, including the
decarbonization of shipping.
Question 5. In your testimony, you discussed a complex web of
environmental impacts in the maritime sector. What would it take to
comprehensively and sustainably advance the US position in the clean
maritime industry and totally decarbonize our maritime sector?
Answer. While marine transportation is by far the most
environmentally friendly form of transportation on a ton per distance
traveled basis, the industry has long been committed to the principle
of continuous improvement in our safety and environmental performance
and reduction of our environmental footprint. The complex web of
environmental issues to which I referred in my testimony relates to the
need to appreciate that environmental improvements in one specific area
of vessel operations may adversely impact the environmental performance
in other areas. Our goal is, of course, to address these issues
holistically so that the maximum net environmental benefit is realized.
The same is true with regard to all transportation modes and their GHG
emissions control strategies. As noted above that shipping is the most
environmentally friendly form of transportation on a ton per distance
traveled basis, we must be certain that shifts to other less friendly
transportation modes do not result from GHG reduction strategies
applied to the global maritime industry.
Question 6. Shore power technology has the potential to virtually
eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from maritime vessels while at
berth, put upfront capital expenditure has deterred operators from
investing in such infrastructure.
a. What sorts of incentives and supports could help promote at-
berth electrification for your members' vessels?
b. What sorts of collaboration and coordination are necessary to
ensure international operators can plug in to an electric grid here and
abroad? What are the advantages of that approach?
Answer. Please permit me to respond to these two questions in a
single response. In our opinion, the largest obstructions to the global
adoption of the use of shore power while a vessel is at berth is two-
fold. The first is the lack of a global land-based and shipboard
standard for shore power provision and standardization of the ship/
shore interface. This is a significant challenge since the energy
demands of a vessel at berth vary with the type of vessel. The second,
and equally important obstruction, is capital cost to the terminal
operator (land-based infrastructure) and to the vessel owner to
retrofit its vessels to connect to shore power. While these are not
insurmountable challenges, they will require a coordination between the
global shipping industry and terminals to assure a safe and sufficient
power supply is available to vessels of all types. Another confounding
aspect of this issue relates to the commercial ownership profiles of
terminals worldwide. In some cases, terminals are privately owned while
in other cases, these terminals are owned and operated by national
governments or regional port authorities and thus funding streams would
need to be created by both public and private entities.
In our opinion the necessary incentives and supports to promote a
global at-berth electrification program require collaboration and
coordination of all stakeholders to provide a globally consistent set
of requirements for both the vessel and land-based infrastructure which
will provide the shore power to the vessels. This process has been
underway at IMO as regards standardization of the ship to shore
interface for vessels but does not seem to be developed on the shore
side of the connection, understandable due to the wide variation in
terminal ownership characteristics as well as national initiatives to
promote the shore power concept. Once this coordination is well
underway, discussions on funding should ensure that funding for the
shore based infrastructure would occur at least at a national level or
in some cases at regional or port level programs.
One comment we would offer on the use of shore-power is the need to
recognize that emissions reduced at the ship/shore interface through a
shore power program, must be viewed in the perspective of the ultimate
source of the shore power. For example, China has put a limited shore
power usage requirement in some of its major ports, but to the best of
our knowledge the power is being generated by coal-fired power plants
which, at a minimum, results in a zero net emissions reduction or, more
likely, an increase in net emissions given the land-based emissions
associated with coal-fired power plants.
Question 7. The International Council on Clean Transportation
reports that over 59,000 people died from effects of shipping emissions
in 2015, and the ongoing effects of port activity on local
communities--disproportionately low-income communities of color--
include asthma and other chronic illnesses. What steps can we take
today to mitigate these impacts?
Answer. While we are not in a position to address environmental
issues ashore which result from the close proximity of port and
terminal facilities with low-income communities of any type, the global
maritime industry's commitment to reduction of its environmental
footprint via all media, will result in the net improvement of
environmental quality in the port/terminal areas at least as regards
the emissions from the vessel while at berth. Collaboration between the
port and global maritime community can further decrease the impacts of
marine operations in these areas even further.
Question from Hon. Anthony G. Brown to Kathy Metcalf, President and
Chief Executive Officer, Chamber of Shipping of America
Question 1. In your opinion, what policy actions can Congress take
to ensure that the Department of Defense's investment in blue carbon
capture technology is accessible and leveraged by the commercial
maritime industry?
Answer. The important issue highlighted by this question is not
unique to the commercial access to blue carbon capture technologies
being pursued by the Department of Defense (DOD). As a result of the
significant R&D budgets allocated to DOD, many cutting edge
environmental issues have been the subject of DOD research projects
including hull fouling, underwater noise generation by vessels and
technologies used to control and monitor operational discharges from
vessels. While some sharing of information has occurred in the past,
the commercial maritime industry has rarely been the benefactor of
findings from DOD studies due to security classifications. While it
would clearly be inappropriate to publicly share information with
national security implications, a better process to timely review and
remove security classifications from studies which have never or no
longer carry national security implications would be a critical
development to enable sharing of information between the military and
commercial maritime sectors.
Questions from Hon. Carol D. Miller to Kathy Metcalf, President and
Chief Executive Officer, Chamber of Shipping of America
Question 1. The shipping industry has pledged to generate 5 billion
dollars over the next 10 years to help meet the International Maritime
Organization 2050 emission reduction targets. How will the money be
used to accomplish this goal?
Answer. The global maritime transport industry has submitted a
proposal to form the world's first collaborative shipping R&D program
to help eliminate CO2 emissions from international shipping. This
proposal was discussed at length at the hearing by Mr. John Butler of
the World Shipping Council. A copy of the industry proposal to IMO is
attached to his testimony at Annex A. CSA participated in the
development of this initiative as a founding member of the
International Chamber of Shipping, one of the 8 sponsors of this
proposal which also included the World Shipping Council. This proposal
includes the creation of an International Maritime Research and
Development Board (IMRB), a non-governmental R&D organization that
would be overseen by IMO Member States with a primary focus of
accelerating the research, development and deployment of low-carbon and
zero-carbon fuels, energy sources, propulsion systems and other new GHG
reduction technologies that will be necessary to meet the 2050 goal set
by the IMO strategy. The IMRB would be composed of a Board of
Directors, Executive Director and a professional staff with specific
responsibilities including:
Development, direction, management and administration of
the international maritime research and development strategy designed
to promote the development of low-carbon and zero-carbon technologies
and fuels for use across the maritime sector, including propulsion
systems;
Identification, definition and ongoing refinement of the
specific research priorities established within the mandate and charter
of the IMRB;
Development of specific R&D programs, review of proposals
received, and decisions concerning specific project approval and
funding;
Consideration of changes and modifications to specific
research and development objectives in light of project results,
technology developments, and experience gained;
Administration of the collection of R&D contributions and
the issuance of evidence of contributions having been made by
shipowners; and
Management and administration of the International
Maritime Research Fund (IMRF) including all fiduciary responsibilities
and provision of regular progress reports, assessments, and
recommendations to the supervisory body which would report to the IMO
Marine Environment Protection Committee.
While the IMRB is still in proposed form and will be discussed at
the spring 2020 meeting of the IMO Marine Environment Protection
Committee, it is envisioned that the IMRB Board would include non-
governmental professionals with experience in research and development,
shipping, shipbuilding, zero-carbon fuels, environmental energy policy
and other expertise relevant to the work of the Board, all contributing
to the identification of promising research projects and the necessary
oversight of these projects as they are being conducted.
Question 2. How has the shipping industry worked with the U.S.
Government to promote smart, proactive regulations and what can we do
in Congress to make sure that American shipping remains competitive?
Answer. The Chamber of Shipping of America is committed to work
with stakeholders at the international and US national level, first as
a member of the International Chamber of Shipping delegation to the IMO
as well as working with members of the US delegation to IMO which
includes representatives from EPA, the US Coast Guard and the Maritime
Administration (MARAD). Nationally, MARAD, although working with a
woefully inadequate budget, has conducted a number of research projects
in this area through its Maritime Environmental and Technical
Assistance (META) Program. Under the META program, MARAD partners with
federal, state and local agencies, the maritime industry and academia,
to develop and carry out projects that provide information and insight
on key maritime environmental issues. To date, projects have been
carried out or are currently underway in the areas of vessel and port
emissions, biofuels, fuel cells, liquefied natural gas (LNG), emissions
reduction technologies, hybrid and batteries and energy efficiency
technologies. The META program's impacts could be significantly
increased with a larger budget allocation which would enable MARAD to
delve into new issues and expand the scope of their studies on existing
issues.
Similar programs are underway in a number of countries but better
coordination at the international level is needed to avoid duplication
and promote a sharing of information and expenses in conducting these
much needed research projects.
As regards the competitiveness of the US shipping industry i.e. US
flag, there is no doubt that these initiatives will significantly add
to the capital cost of building a vessel as well as the operating costs
associated with what are likely to be more expensive fuels. While it is
expected that these costs will be borne across the entire industry,
regardless of flag, the current cost differentials between US flag
vessels versus non-US flag vessels will at least remain the same if not
increase.
Question 3. It is important to recognize the importance that
traditional fuel will continue to play in global trade in powering our
fleets, especially in deep sea shipping. How has the industry continued
to innovate when it comes to traditional fuel sources?
Answer. In an ideal world, the shift from traditional fuels to
carbon neutral fuels would be a seamless and accelerated transition
regardless of whether the fuel was used in a land based or sea based
application. As is implied in this question, use of traditional fuels
will continue until such time as new carbon neutral fuels are produced
in sufficient volumes, new vessels are constructed with propulsion
systems that can utilize these carbon free fuels and the necessary
shore infrastructure is in place to supply these carbon free fuels to
the global maritime industry. In the meantime, the global shipping
industry has adopted a number of measures already in place that are
reducing emissions from vessels. These measure include the adoption of
the energy efficiency design index (EEDI) applicable to new vessels,
the ship's energy efficiency management plan applicable to both new and
existing vessels and more stringent requirements for reduced nitrogen
oxide (NOx) emissions from marine engines. In addition to these
measures the sulfur levels of marine fuels have been drastically
reduced from an average 2.5% sulfur level to a 0.5% sulfur level for
fuels used on the high seas and a 0.1% sulfur level for fuels used in
IMO adopted emissions control areas which includes the North America
and the Caribbean emission control areas. While it is recognized that
these measures will not bring the CO2 emissions down to the goals
included in the IMO greenhouse gas emissions control strategy, these
are early steps in reducing vessel emissions until such time as low or
zero carbon fuels and vessels are in place.