1. U.S. Marine Emissions Regulations
and Compliance Initiatives &
Assessments
Author: Michael Lovejoy, Lovejoy-McAuley & Company
November 2015

2. Contact information
dfasdf
Michael Lovejoy
Principal
Lovejoy-McAuley & Company
709 ½ Marshall Street’
Houston, TX 77006
United States of America
Phone: +1 713 523 7198
Email: michael.lovejoy@live.com
Lovejoy-McAuley & Company
Lovejoy-McAuley & Company is an international business consultancy that focuses primarily on the
internationalization of Finnish companies. The firm’s principal consultant has over thirty years
international market analysis and business development experience, working primarily in the
cleantech and energy sectors, which includes the offshore segment of the oil & gas industry. The past
twenty years have been spent assisting Finnish companies with their interests and activities in the
USA.
Tekes – the Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation
Tekes is the main public funding organisation for research, development and innovation in Finland.
Tekes funds wide-ranging innovation activities in research communities, industry and service sectors
and especially promotes cooperative and risk-intensive projects. Tekes’ current strategy puts strong
emphasis on growth seeking SMEs.

3. 1
Executive
Summary
The United States, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, is one of the largest
if not the largest source of marine GHG emissions in the world, and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s 2012 regulation to ensure enforcement of the
International Maritime Organization’s North American Emissions Control Area (ECA)
rule has had impact on public and private sector initiatives and strategies to minimize
maritime GHG emissions in the USA.
Key observations with respect to the above are:
1. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) study finds that Exhaust Controls (‘Scrubbers’)
and Engine-based Controls (Tier 3 Emissions Levels) are the most likely
compliance strategies for oceangoing vessels.
2. For newbuild oceangoing vessels, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) is
pretty much in agreement with the DOE with the addition of advanced hull &
propeller design.
3. The DOE finds in its analysis that distillate fuel oil will be used to cover the gap
until emission controls and fuel switching systems are installed aboard ships.
4. LNG is the third likely compliance strategy outlined in the DOE study, but the
depressed offshore service vessel market and lack of commercial bunkering
infrastructure is limiting growth in the USA.
5. In a June 2015 study, Transparency Market Research, who define the hybrid
electric vessel fleet as consisting of tugboats, offshore service vessels, military
vessel, ferries, and other small craft, forecast the compound annual growth rate
for the global hybrid propulsion market at 8.02% between 2014 and 2022, but this
may be overstated due to the inclusion of diesel-electric vessels; whereas, the
CEO of DNV GL opined, also in June 2015, that the global hybrid vessel fleet of
vessels in operation or on order would increase from 33 in 2015 to perhaps 100
by 2020.
6. In the USA, newbuild marine hybrid vessels are limited by generally low growth in
the tugboat market and system cost, and the obstacle to hybrid retrofits of
exisitng tugboats is most probably due to a 2012 lithium polymer battery pack fire
on a vessel in California.
7. A 3
rd
Quarter 2015 forecast by Navigant Research shows a tenfold increase in
global utility electricity revenue derived from shore power (‘cold ironing’) facilities
between 2015 and 2024, and U.S. West Coast ports have been early locations
for major shore power infrastructure investment; however, ports and vessel
operators in other regions of the USA are looking at emerging scrubber and
engine control technologies as alternatives due to shore power’s investment cost.
8. Marine fuel cell applications appear to be a major area of interest for both the
DOE and the American Bureau of Shipping.
9. Leading Finnish firms have made contributions to new technologies that meet
maritime emission regulation requirements in the USA, and opportunities should
present themselves for future business when U.S. markets for tugboats and
offshore service vessels begin to expand again.

4. 2
U.S.
Maritime
Sector
Profile
In 2015, the United States had 360 Commercial Ports with 3,200 Cargo & Passenger
Handling Facilities. The latest published statistics for 2011, show these ports
servicing 7,836 oceangoing vessels that made 68,036 calls. In 2013, inbound and
outbound waterborne traffice amounted to 891.2 million short tons and 34.2 million
containers (TEU’s). Figure 1, below, shows the top 25 ports by tonnage in 2011.
As Figure 1, above, and Figure 2, below, show, there is a large amount of internal
marine transportation traffic in the USA, which includes major intracoastal commerce
as well as substaintial offshore service vessel traffic related to oil & gas operations,
primarily in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Within this vessel operating area there are
approcimately 1,468 seagoing tugboats, 977 offshore service vessels, and 620
ferries.
As shown in Figures 3 & 4 and geographically referenced in Figure 5, below,
container ships are the largest consumers of transit & auxiliary fuel in US ECA
waters, and the South Atlantic and Pacific maritime divisions are the major locations
for consumption.

5. 3

6. 4
Impact of
U.S. Marine
Emissions
The U.S. Department of Energy reports:
“…a 2009 International Maritime Organization (IMO) study projects that by 2050 the
baseline world international maritime CO2 growth will range from 220–310%, with a
265% average. Without technology improvements, the high end estimate is a 723%
CO2 increase, providing a major incentive for improvement.”
1
With regard to the current U.S. share of global maritime emissions, the report
estimates:
“Although no estimates are available for the U.S. share of international global
maritime GHG emissions, a reasonable estimate of the U.S. share of these
emissions is in the range of 1–12%. The U.S. contribution to international maritime
GHG emissions is either the world’s largest or one of the world’s largest.”
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s lists the primary emissions of concern in
the maritime sector:
 Particulate matter less than 10 (PM10) and 2.5 microns (PM2.5)
 Ground-level ozone
 Carbon monoxide
 Nitrogen dioxide
 Sulfur dioxide
 Lead
And they provide an inventory of primary emissions by mode for U.S. ports in Figure
6, below, which shows oceangoing, deep draft vessels as the leading emitters
followed by harbor craft.
2

7. 5
U.S.
Government
Maritime
Emissions
Regulations
In 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the emission
control area (ECA) for most U.S. coastal waters, including southeastern and south-
central Alaska. The EPA’s rule was designed to enforce the International Maritime
Organization’s (“IMO”) International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships (“MARPOL”) Annex VI, which requires a phase-in of new marine fuel oil
standards with lower sulfur limits as shown in Table 1, below.
As shown, in Figure 7, below, the North American ECA governs ships operating
within 200 nautical miles [370.4 km] of the U.S. and Canadian coasts.

8. 6
State of
California
Maritime
Emissions
Regulations
The Pacific Coast State of California is considered to be one of the most progressive
states in the USA with a strong record for implementing environmental regulations.
With regard to ocean going vessels, the California Environmental Protection
Agency’s Air Resources Board (ARB) stepped ahead of the EPA’s ECA regulation
and adopted its own regulation, “Fuel Sulfur and Other Operation Requirements for
Ocean-Going Vessels within California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles (44.448 km) of
the California Baseline” on 24 July 2008, with Phase II regulations going into effect a
full year ahead of the North American ECA – i.e., 1 January 2014 vs. 1 January 2015.
California’s regulations go beyond the MARPOL Annex VI requirements. The two
principal differences are:
 MARPOL does not specify the type of fuel to be used other than stipulating
that the sulphur content must not exceed 0.1%. ARB OGV fuel rule requires
the use of distillate fuel oil, not residual fuel oil;
 MAPROL permits the use of alternative emission control technologies (e.g.,
exhaust gas scrubbers) to achieve the necessary reduction in sulphur
emissions. ARB OGV fuel rule legislation does not recognize the use of such
technology as a means of compliance.
In 2007, California’s Air Resources Board adopted the regulation: "Airborne Toxic
Control Measure for Auxiliary Diesel Engines Operated on Ocean-Going Vessels At-
Berth in a California Port“. Regulation requires vessel feet operators to either turn off
auxiliary engines and connect the vessel to some other source of power, most likely
grid-based shore power, or use alternative control technique(s) that achieve
equivalent emission reductions.
Fleets affected by the Regulation include those composed of container vessels,
passenger vessels, or refrigerated cargo vessels.
For fleets complying with the shore power requirement, at least 50 percent of a fleet's
visits to a port must satisfy the following limit on engine operation:
 For each visit, the auxiliary engines on the vessel cannot operate for more
than three hours during the entire time the vessel is at-berth (e.g., a shore
power visit); and
 The fleet's total onboard auxiliary engine power generation must be reduced
by at least 50 percent from the fleet's baseline power generation.
In 2017 & 2020, the percentages are increased 70% and 80%, respectively.

9. 7
Federal
Government
Initiatives
U.S. Department of Transportation
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Maratime Administration (MARAD) has
created the Maritime Environmental and Technical Assistance Program (META)
whose’s purpose is to stimulate technology advances for improved sustainability by
addressing critical marine transportation environmental issues through collaborative
effort among Federal agencies, academia, industry and public stakeholders.
A major area of interest for META is the “Maritime Use of Alternative Energy and
Technology”, which has the following objectives:
 Lead efforts for Maritime use of natural gas – i.e. compressed natural gas
(CNG) & liquid natural gas (LNG);
 Test new generation “drop in” biofuels;
 Investigate marine applications of fuel cell technology.
Major goals of META are:
 Technology validation and demonstration;
 Reduction of polluting emission from ships and in and around ports.
U.S. Department of Energy
Related to California Air Resources Board’s regulation concerning the mandate to
use shore power (‘cold-ironing’), while docking in California ports, in June 2013, the
U.S. Department of Energy’s Sandia National Laboratory, modeling a barge-based
cold ironing system, “…found that hydrogen fuel cells may be both technically
feasible and commercially attractive as a clean, quiet and efficient power source for
ships at berth, replacing on-board diesel generators.”
3
Figure 8, below, shows a schematic of the barge-based shore power system.
U.S. Department of Defense
In 2002, the U.S. Navy’s Chief of Naval Research told the U.S. Congress: “the
electric warship is an essential future naval capability and is key to naval
transformation. This was the beginning of the navy’s transition to an all electric fleet.
A schematic of the navy’s all electric ship program is shown in Figure 9, below.

10. 8
In Spring 2013, the Navy released a planning document, Naval Power Systems
Technology Development Roadmap, whose intent is to promote academic and naval
collaboration in order to identify effective ways to generate and store power on
ships.
4
Roadmap provides major near-term recommendations:
 An ‘Energy Magazine’ to support advanced weapons and sensors;
 Development of energy recovery;
 Prototypes and demonstrations for advanced versions of Energy Magazine,
ship power management controller, and energy recovery;
 Advanced medium voltage DC (MVDC) technologies as an alternative to AC;
 Continued discovery and invention (D&I) basic research efforts.
The Navy’s Technology Working Group has defined six product areas for research:
 Controls
 Distribution
 Energy Storage
 Electrical Rotating Machines
 Power Converters
 Prime Movers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The U.S. Enviornmental Protection Agency (EPA), in partnership with the American
Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), has encouraged ports to measure by sources
of emission – i.e., conduct emissions inventory.
5
An emission inventory is a
quantification of all emissions of criteria and other pollutants (including toxics and
greenhouse gases) that occur within a designated area by their source. Without an
inventory of the port as an entity, it is difficult to assess opportunities for emission
reductions and to quantify reductions over time. [See “Impact of U.S. Marine
Emissions” section, above, for list of EPA’s emissions of concern.]

11. 9
Leading
Seaport
Initiatives
San Pedro Ports Clean Air Action Plan
In 2006, the California Ports of Long Beach and Port of Los Angeles adopted the San
Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP). Within CAAP is the Technology
Advancement Program initiative, whose mission is to accelerate the verification or
commercial availability of new, clean technologies, through evaluation and
demonstration in order to move towards an emissions free port. Technology areas
are: Engine Technologies, Engine Support Technologies, After Treatment
Technologies, Alternative Fuels, Alternative Supplemental Power Systems, Ship-
Related Efficiencies.
Hybrid Tug proposed by Seattle-based Foss Marine received partial funding from the
San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan, and the $8 million vessel, Carolyn
Dorothy, billed as the “world’s first hybrid tug” became active in January 2009.
6
The
vessel’s description is provided in Table 2, below.
The U.S. Environmental Protection agency issued the following comments:
 Hybrid tugs can reduce fuel use, emissions and noise by drawing on stored
battery power under low-load conditions (~75% of duty cycle). More power is
supplied by diesel engines when needed. Battery power is recharged from
engine use and shore power.
 Estimated 44% reduction in NOX and PM emissions; 20-30% SOX and CO
reduction; 20-30%+ fuel savings.
In 2012, a second retro-fitted tugboat, the Campbell Foss, was introduced in San
Pedro Bay waters, utilizing a more powerful lithium polymer battery back vs. the
Carolyn Dorothy’s conventional lead acid battery back. Unfortunately, the Campbell
Foss subsquently caught fire due to overcharging.
7
There have been no additional
hybrid tugs introduced into the area since the fire.
San Pedro Bay Ports Monitoring Programs
Port of Long Beach and Port of Los Angeles monitoring programs support their joint
commitment to improving air quality within the San Pedro Bay region under CAAP.
Through this monitoring, CAAP provides real-time air quality information, which is
shown in Figure 10, below.
8 9

12. 10
Port of Los Angeles Alternative Maritime Power™
Port of Los Angeles (POLA) developed its Alternative Maritime Power™ (AMP™)
program, which is a “one-of-a-kind air quality program” that focuses on reducing
emissions by having AMP-equipped ships “plug in” to shore side electrical power.
In June 2004, POLA opened the first container terminal in the world to use AMP™
technology. [Note: Swiss company Cavotec SA has provided AMP technology to
POLA.]
In February 2011, POLA’s World Cruise Center became the first port worldwide to
provide AMP to three separate cruise lines – i.e.,, Disney Cruise Line, Princess
Cruises and Norwegian Cruise Line. World Cruise Center is the only port where two
cruise ships can be connected simultaneously. Cruise ships utilize either 6.6 kilovolts
(kV) or 11 kV electrical power distribution systems to plug into shore side power; Port
of Los Angeles can now accommodate either.
In compliance with California Air Resource Board regulation for switiching of auxiliary
power, as of 1 January 2014 POLA had 25 berths with AMP™ capabilities, more than
any other port in the world.
POLA has been an active participant in the development of the International
Standards Organization (ISO) international High Voltage Shore Connection (HVSC)
standard.
Port of Long Beach Green Port Policy
In January 2005, Port of Long Beach adopted Green Port Policy. Since then, SOX,
NOX and diesel particulate emissions have been cut by 88, 54 and 81 percent,
respectively. The port is also working with carriers to cut emissions through two
voluntary programs.
Port Green Flag Program
Program is a voluntary vessel speed reduction program that rewards vessel
operators for slowing down to 12 knots or less within 20 or 40 nautical miles of Point
Fermin (near the entrance to the Harbor).

13. 11
Operators participating in the program and who achieve a 90% or higher compliance
rate at the 20 or 40 nautical mile level in one calendar year may earn dockage rate
reductions for calls made in the following calendar year.
Reduced speeds keep 1,000 tons of air pollutants and 45,000 tons of greenhouse
gases from being emitted into the air each year.
Green Ship Incentive Program
Port rewards ship operators that bring the newest, cleanest ships to the Port of Long
Beach.
Program gives financial incentives to ships meeting the international Tier 2 engine
standards, which emit 15% fewer NOx emissions than the current fleet, and Tier 3
standards, which emit 80% fewer NOx emissions.
Since launching in 2012, the program has eliminated more than 20 tons of ship-
related NOX emissions.
Port of New York New Jersey Clean Vessel Incentive (CVI) Program
CVI Program provides financial incentives to encourage operators of oceangoing
vessels calling at certain Port of New York New Jersey (PANYNJ) marine terminals
to make voluntary engine, fuel and technology enhancements that reduce emissions
beyond the regulatory environmental standards set by the IMO.
CVI Program details:
 Operational dates are January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2015.
 Based on World Ports Climate Initiative’s “Environmental Ship Index” (ESI).
10
 Reimbursements will be on a first come first serve basis with annual funding
caps of $1.6 million per year.
 Participating Companies: APL, Ltd. Great American Lines, SUD, Hapag-
Lloyd, Hyundai, K-Line America, Maersk, MOL (America), MSC, NYK Line
(North America), Yang Ming, Zim
The ECI measures include:
 Reduction of nitrogen oxide emissions;
 Use of low-sulfur content fuels;
 Existence of a vessel energy management plan;
 Presence of an approved onshore power system (OPS) installed on board.
Additional points added to CVI score if vessel participates in port’s vessel speed
reduction program and all engines meet Tier II & III standards.

14. 12
Future
Compliance
Strategies
Assessment
U.S. Department of Energy
In June 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy published an Energy Information
Agency (EIA) report
11
, which identified what it believes to be are the three most likely
compliance strategies available for oceangoing vessels traveling within the North
American ECA:
Exhaust Controls - SOX & NOX
SOX Scrubbers
 Open-loop design, which uses seawater as exhaust washwater and
discharges the treated washwater back to the sea, with the remaining sludge
disposed of at port;
 Closed-loop system, where fresh water is used as washwater, and caustic
soda is injected, with a small portion of the washwater is bled off and treated
to remove sludge, which is held and disposed of at port
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) system, which uses a catalyst to chemically
reduce NOX to nitrogen using urea as a reagent in the presence of high-temperature
exhaust gases.
Without scrubbers, marine distillate fuel most likely used.
Engine-based Controls – Tier 3 Emissions Levels
Fuel injection systems coupled with the use of two-stage turbocharging and
electronic valving; Two stage turbocharging will probably be installed on at least 70
percent of all engines produced to meet Tier III emission levels
Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) system, whereby a portion of the exhaust gas is
recirculated back to the engine cylinders. The recirculated gases lower the oxygen
content at the engine intake resulting in lower combustion temperatures and less
thermal NOX production.
Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) Fueled Vessels
The EIA report states:
“For LNG to become an attractive fuel for the majority of ships, a global network of
LNG bunkering terminals must be established. If not, LNG-fueled ships will be limited
to coastal trades where LNG bunkering networks are established.”
The U.S. offshore service vessel (OSV) market in the Gulf of Mexico has been a
likely target for LNG-fueled vessels, due to the established natural gas distribution
infrastructure. However, the lack of bunkering infrastructure is a problem.
Harvey Gulf International Marine recently took delivery of the first gas-fueled offshore
service vessel to be flagged in the USA and the first LNG-powered vessel in service
in North America,.with five more on order. But the lack of a local LNG bunkering
infrastructure was a major cause of concern for Harvey, and they had to construct
their own terminal.
Aside from Harvey, there are not any other LNG-fueled OSVs on order in the USA
due in part to the backlog of vessels on order as well as the downturn in the U.S. oil
& gas sector. Nevertheless, the American Bureau of Shipping reports that there is still
keen interest by OSV operators in future LNG prospects.

15. 13
The EIA’s projected impact of the above strategies during the next twenty-five years
can be seen in Figure 11, below, which indicates that distillate fuel oil will be used to
cover the gap until emission controls and fuel switching systems are installed aboard
ships, and the LNG market will have comparatively modest growth.
Other strategies were analyzed, but they are not seen to have early market
penetration – i.e.:
 Alternative fuels as replacement to marine oil – e.g., Quadrise Canada’s
MSAR® SFO™;
 Biofuels – e.g., Europe’s TEN-T Priority Project 21: Motorways of the Seas
pilot [Note: the EIA finds that there is no significant consumption of biofuels
currently taking place];
 Water injection into combustion chamber either through fumigation or as fuel
emulsions, or direct water injection – e.g., Humid Air Motor (HAM) and
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) in Viking Line.
In the longer term, the EIA report sees increased efficiency of new vessels, utilizing
design technologies suggested by the International Council on Clean
Transportation.
12
California Air Resources Board (ARB)
ARB has reviewed a host of compliance strategies for new oceangoing vessels.
13
Interestingly, the most likely ones that they see are pretty much in line with the EIA
observations:
 LNG-fueled Engines
 Selective Catalytic Reduction
 Exhaust Heat Recovery
 Advanced Hull and Propeller Design

16. 14
U.S. Ports & Shore Power
The World Port Climate Initiative (WPCI) has recommended using onshore power
supply (‘shore power’ or ‘cold ironing’) as a means of reducing the environmental
impact of ships in port.
14
Wikipedia defines shore power as “…the provision of shore side electrical power to a
ship at berth while its main and auxiliary engines are shut down.
15
They further state: “Source for land-based power may be grid power from an electric
utility company, but also possibly an external remote generator. These generators
may be powered by diesel or renewable energy sources such as wind or solar”.
Masao Yamasaki of the Marine Environment Division of the International Maritime
Organisation (IMO) said the IMO had discussed making shore power mandatory in
2012 but concluded at that time there were not enough ports (only 20, mostly in the
USA and Scandinavia) that had the technology for it.
As shown in Table 3, below, the U.S. West Coast ports took an early lead in shore
power initiatives. But the Port of New York New Jersey has also been active.
16
According to Navigant Research, “Shore power is expected to ultimately become the
most impactful tool in making ports more efficient…”
16
Navigant’s measure of the
future market prospects for shore power is shown in Figure 12, below.

17. 15
Navigant observes that existing shore power regulatory requirements in California
and the European Union are driving the market. And they predict that shore power
equipment suppliers will see an increase in market opportunities during the next ten
years, particularly in these favorable regulatory environments and the emerging
markets in Asia Pacific.
There has indeed been substaintial investment by major California ports as a result of
the ARB regulation:
 Port of Long Beach = $200 million;.
 Port of Los Angeles = $250 (25 Berths);
 Port of Oakland = $55 million + $10 million Tenant Investments.
There is push back, however, elsewhere in the USA on the required cost to develop
shore power in ports outside the West Coast. Elena Craft of the Environmental
Defense Fund writes:
“East and Gulf coast ports have shied away from electrifying wharves because they
aren’t convinced the high implementation cost will prove economical…The reluctance
stems from concern that ships calling outside the West Coast are not equipped to
use shore power, that liquefied natural gas may become a clean-fuel choice for
ocean carriers....”
17
ARB in California opened the door for an alternative to shore power with the
language in tis regulation allowing: “…alternative control technique(s) that achieve
equivalent emission reductions.” Recently there have been two at-berth scrubber
technologies, which meet ARB’s approval.
18 19
Thus, the 23 May 2015 issue of The Maritime Executive has an article, titled “Is Cold
Ironing Redundant Now?”, which cites State of South Carolina Ports Authority Chief
Executive Jim Newsome, who said ultra-low sulfur fuel and scrubbers have made the
air quality improvements touted by shore power obsolete.
20
Newsome has estimated
it would cost about $20 million to build shore power into a new cruise terminal
planned at the port. As a result, Carnival Cruise Lines plans to install scrubbers on
its vessels home-ported in Charleston, South Carolina.
The above situation can be summed up by feedback from the American Bureau of
Shipping for this report, who wrote:
“In short, I would say the prospect for shore power in the US is not good. Ports are
generally not interested in the technology, as it’s so expensive and the benefits can
only be realized while the vessel is at berth, as opposed to fuel switching or
scrubbing technology that yield air quality benefits during transit as well.
California has a shorepower requirement at the state level, but most ports have
already invested there.
Cruise ships are a potential market because of the regularity at which they call at
specific ports; however, many of them are investing ECA compliance through LNG or
scrubbing technology.”
U.S. Operators & Hybrid Electric Vessels
Electrical propulsion in ocean going vessels is not a new idea, and it has had
significant usage in offshore, naval & ship ferry markets. However, Transparency
Market Research narrows the market to specific vessel types made up of ferries,
defense vessels, tugboats and offshore support vessels, and other small craft. They
forecast the compound annual growth rate for the total global marine hybrid

18. 16
propulsion market at 8.02% during the period 2014 to 2022, with the revenue
numbers shown for this period in Figure 13, below.
21
Transparency Market Research defines the hybrid marine propulsion market
according to three system configurations: Diesel-electric, Serial, & Parallel. But the
argument can be made that this overstates the true marine hybrid propulsion market.
As one recent report states:
“The diesel/electric vessel uses its engines to connect directly to an electrical
generator. The power in the system is then transferred electrically to the propeller
shaft via motor controller and electric motor…By strict definition, this is not a hybrid,
as there is not storage of electric energy.”
22
It goes on to describe serial and parallel systems:
“Firstly a serial hybrid, where the engine in the system only powers a generator and
is not mechanically connected to the propeller shaft. Secondly a parallel hybrid,
where the engine is mechanically connected along with an electric 'machine' that can
operate as both a propulsion motor and a generator.”
DNV GL’s CEO Tor Svensen gave a postive view of the true future hybrid vessel
market, but his forecast numbers, as shown in Figure 14, below, are comparatively
small.
23

19. 17
While hybrid systems do cost more than standard marine systems, U.S. company
XALT® Energy notes benefits come from reduced fuel costs. They provide a
comparison of the cost differences between the two vessel types as shown in Figure
14, below.
The near-term growth prospects for hybrid vessels are not good in the USA. There
have only been two hybrid tugboats delivered to-date in 2009 and 2012, respectively.
In this regard, the Port of Los Angeles was interviewed for this report. They said that
the first vessel, the Carolyn Dorothy, performs quite well, but cost remains an issue
with vessel operators – i.e., $2 million above conventional system. For the later
vessel, the Campbell Foss, the fire was an issue and marketing of retrofitted hybrid
tugboats has ceased. In another inteview for this report, the American Bureau of
Shipping, noting the low but steady growth in the U.S. tugboat fleet, stated: “Low
growth market not looking for technology alternatives.”
Offshore Service Vessels were seen as another opportunity for hybrid vessels in the
USA, especially as they are configured with LNG-fueled engines. Unfortunately, as
noted earlier, the sharp downturn in the U.S. oil & gas industry, which does not have
a near-term estimated recovery, does not bode well for hybrid newbuilds in this
marine segment. The American Bureau of Shipping did note that that vessel
operators remain interested in good environmental citizenship, and they continue to
discuss LNG applications in their future business. But no newbuilds of any kind are
on the immediate horizon.
One area of interest on the part of the American Bureau of Shipping is with fuel cell
technology. They have been actively pursuing research in this area, and they are
liasing with European entities.

20. 18
Matching
Finnish
Offering
A review of U.S. North American ECA compliance interests and possible matching
Finnish offerings is shown in Table 4, below.

21. 19
Referenced
Links
1. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/55637.pdf
2. http://www.epa.gov/sectors/sectorinfo/sectorprofiles/ports/ports-emission-inv-
april09.pdf
3. http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f12/sand2013-
0501_barge_mounted_pemfc.pdf
4. http://www.defenseinnovationmarketplace.mil/resources/NavalPowerSystems
TechnologyRoadmap.pdf
5. http://www.epa.gov/sectors/publications/pubsector.html#preparing
6. http://caap.airsis.com/MapView.aspx
7. http://www.professionalmariner.com/December-January-2013/Battery-
related-fire-damages-famed-hybrid-tug-puts-it-out-of-service/
8. http://caap.airsis.com/MapView.aspx
9. http://caap.airsis.com/CurrentData.aspx
10. http://www.environmentalshipindex.org/Public/Home
11. http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/transportation/marinefuel/pdf/marine_fuel
.pdf
12. http://www.theicct.org/
13. http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/tech/presentation/oceanvessels.pdf
14. http://www.onshorepowersupply.org/
15. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shorepower
16. https://www.navigantresearch.com/newsroom/shore-power-electricity-
revenue-in-port-operations-is-expected-to-exceed-334-million-in-2024
17. http://www.americanshipper.com/Main/News/Shore_power_disruptor_57985.
aspx
18. http://caemaritime.com/when-you-need-us
19. www.advancedcleanup.com
20. http://maritime-executive.com/features/is-cold-ironing-redundant-now
21. http://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/pressrelease/marine-hybrid-
propulsion-market.htm
22. http://www.shockmitigationdirectory.com/earticle-detail/viable-hybrid-power-
systems-for-workboats/22/
23. https://www.dnvgl.com/news/update-on-shipping-2020-dnv-gl-sees-hybrid-
propulsion-and-connectivity-as-emerging-trends-25931