The Chair of the US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), Laura DiBella, has backed the inclusion of LNG and bio-LNG in the IMO's proposed Net-Zero Framework (NZF), arguing that any workable framework should allow the widest possible range of alternative marine fuels.

The FMC is the US agency that regulates ocean-borne transportation in the country's foreign commerce. The NZF is the IMO's central tool for cutting greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping — a sector responsible for roughly 3% of global emissions — through fuel-intensity requirements and emissions pricing for large ocean-going vessels, in support of the IMO's goal of net-zero shipping by or around 2050.

In a statement issued on Thursday, DiBella said emissions reductions should be linked to the viability, affordability, global availability and scalability of alternative fuels, rather than to a rigid implementation date or a limited set of fuel options.

"Fuel diversity does not necessarily equate to fuel availability, stability, and reliability," she said.

"Both conventional and transitional fuels should remain in use to meet these criteria," she added.

Bio-LNG and LNG Could Supply 60% of Global Marine Fuel by 2050

DiBella specifically highlighted LNG and bio-LNG, saying the fuels could play a significant role in the maritime sector's future fuel mix.

"Conversations around emissions reductions must be expanded to include more fuel types, notably LNG and bio-LNG," DiBella said.

The two fuels could "realistically supply over 60% of global maritime fuel by 2050," she said.

Bio-LNG, produced from organic agricultural waste, is particularly well positioned, according to DiBella, because it can use existing LNG infrastructure and serve the growing fleet of LNG-fuelled vessels. LNG is currently the most commonly ordered alternative fuel for newbuild tonnage, according to classification society orderbook data, giving it a larger installed base of vessels and bunkering infrastructure than other alternative marine fuels. Critics of the fuel, including environmental groups, have pointed to methane slip — the release of unburned methane, a potent greenhouse gas — as a factor that can erode LNG's lifecycle emissions advantage.

She also rejected concerns that bio-LNG would inevitably become more expensive as demand increases.

"The concern that bio-LNG will inevitably become more expensive as demand for biofuels grows assumes that fuel supply remains static while demand increases," she said.

"A well-designed global fuel standard can create the long-term demand certainty needed to unlock new investment and expand supply—particularly in the United States," she said.

The policy challenge, DiBella said, is to ensure that fuel supply and infrastructure investment can expand alongside demand, rather than limiting alternative fuels because of concerns about future prices.

She also highlighted the US position as the world's leading LNG exporter, with export capacity expected to double by 2030.

"Responsibly sourced, American-made bio-LNG must be recognized as a qualifying fuel domestically and internationally," DiBella said.

US Has Long Opposed the NZF

Her comments come ahead of a technical meeting at the IMO next month, where delegates are expected to address outstanding concerns over the NZF, which failed to secure adoption last year. The session forms part of the run-up to the framework's planned return for adoption following the one-year delay.

DiBella had previously criticised the framework in May, when MEPC 84 discussions were taking place, saying a "silent majority" of countries had emerged in opposition to the proposed NZF.

The US has opposed the framework since it was put forward for adoption and was among the countries that pushed for the decision to adopt it to be delayed by one year. Earlier this year, the US went further and called for the NZF to be scrapped completely.

DiBella's latest comments focus on the need for the framework to allow a wider range of alternative fuels, including LNG and bio-LNG — a debate that centres on which fuels would qualify and be credited under the framework's emissions requirements.

Her comments are her own and do not necessarily represent the position of the Federal Maritime Commission.

Source: Ship & Bunker