ȱ
ȱȱȱ ȱ ȱȱ
ȱȱ
ȱǯȱ¢ȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱ
¢ȱŘŚǰȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱȱȱ
ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ
ǯǯȱ
řŚśŚŞȱ
ȱȱȱ
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
ȱȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
¢ȱ
This report provides information regarding pollution from ships and port facilities; discusses
some of the measures being implemented and considered by local, state, and federal regulatory
agencies; discusses the efforts to ratify and to strengthen Annex VI of the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL); and describes legislation in
Congress to control emissions from ships by amending the Clean Air Act (CAA).
As pollution from cars, trucks, and land-based stationary sources has been more tightly controlled
over the last 40 years, the contribution of ships and port operations to air pollution in port cities
has become more important. In the same period, foreign trade has grown dramatically; thus,
pollution from shipping and port operations would be growing as a percentage of total emissions,
even if the emissions were regulated to the same degree as other sectors. In many cities, ships are
now among the largest sources of air pollution. As Congress and the new Administration turn
their attention to climate change, there is also a growing recognition that marine vessels are an
important source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Controlling these sources of both conventional and greenhouse gas pollutants is complicated by
the fact that most ocean-going ships are not registered in the United States and may not even
purchase the fuel they are using here. Thus, controlling such pollution would seem to lend itself
to an international approach. To date, such efforts have been of little avail. In 1997, the United
States and most countries signed an international agreement known as MARPOL Annex VI,
setting extremely modest controls on air pollution from ships. The agreement did not enter into
force until 2005, and the United States took until July 21, 2008, to enact legislation to implement
it (P.L. 110-280). Negotiations to strengthen Annex VI accelerated in 2008, however, and
discussions regarding GHG emissions have also begun.
While awaiting congressional action and international agreement, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), port cities, and states have begun to act on their own. In the 110th Congress,
legislation was introduced (S. 1499 / H.R. 2548) to require EPA to dramatically strengthen ship
emission standards under the Clean Air Act. S. 1499 was reported, but no further action was
taken.
ȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
MARPOL Annex VI ........................................................................................................................ 2
Provisions of Annex VI ............................................................................................................. 2
Implementing Legislation (P.L. 110-280) ................................................................................. 3
Amendments to Annex VI......................................................................................................... 3
EPA Regulations........................................................................................................................ 4
Other Legislation............................................................................................................................. 4
Federal, State, and Local Measures ................................................................................................. 5
EPA Regulations........................................................................................................................ 5
Category 3 Engines ............................................................................................................. 5
Category 1 and 2 Engines ................................................................................................... 6
California Emission Reduction Measures ................................................................................. 6
Low Sulfur Fuels ................................................................................................................ 6
Emission Controls............................................................................................................... 7
Alternative Power ............................................................................................................... 7
Grants.................................................................................................................................. 8
Greenhouse Gases ........................................................................................................................... 9
International Efforts to Address GHGs ............................................................................... 9
Shipping vs. Other Transport Modes ................................................................................ 10
Measures to Reduce Ships’ GHG Emissions .................................................................... 10
Conclusion......................................................................................................................................11
ȱ
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 12
ȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Over the last 40 years, air quality in the United States has improved substantially. Since the
passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970, annual emissions of the six most widespread (“criteria”) air
pollutants have declined 160 million tons (53%), despite major increases in population, motor
vehicle miles traveled, and economic activity.1
Emissions from shipping are a major exception to these trends. Although emission controls have
reduced pollution from new cars and trucks by more than 90%, most ocean-going ships operate
without any pollution controls at all. New and remanufactured engines on tug boats, ferries, and
other smaller ships will be subject to emission controls beginning in 2008 and 2009, but most
existing engines in vessels of these types remain uncontrolled.
Pollution from ships is also affected by the fuel they use. Marine vessels other than oceangoing
ships have been required to use cleaner fuels, but ocean-going ships generally use bunker fuel, a
fuel that contains a high level of contaminants: the average fuel used by oceangoing ships
contains 27,000 parts per million (ppm) sulfur, for example—almost 2,000 times as much as
would be allowed in trucks operating on U.S. roads.
In the Los Angeles-Long Beach area—which is both the nation’s busiest port2 and the nation’s
most polluted area3—the problem is particularly acute. According to the South Coast [L.A.-Long
Beach] Air Quality Management District (AQMD):
• Oceangoing vessels are among the largest sources of nitrogen oxides (NOx) in
the area, emitting more NOx than all power plants and refineries in the South
Coast air basin combined. NOx reacts with volatile organic compounds in the
atmosphere to produce ozone/smog.
• 70% of the area’s emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) come from ships. These
emissions need to be cut by over 90%, according to the AQMD, if the area is to
attain the national air quality standard for particulates by the 2014 deadline.
• Particulates from marine vessels also create significant cancer risks.
• More than 700 premature deaths are caused in the Los Angeles area annually by
these emissions, according to the AQMD.4
1 See U.S. EPA, “Air Emissions Summary Through 2005,” at http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/2006/
emissions_summary_2005.html. The six criteria pollutants are ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and lead.
2 According to the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles and Long Beach ranked number 1 and number 2 in the value of
cargo handled, with a combined total exceeding $248.5 billion in 2003-2004. The port of New York and New Jersey
ranked third with $132.4 billion. See “The Busiest U.S. Ports,” March 9, 2006, at http://americanfuture.net/?p=1447.
3 The Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin is the only area that EPA considers to be a “Severe” nonattainment area for
ozone. The area also has the highest readings in the country for fine particulates (PM2.5), and is among only 8 areas
classified as “Serious” nonattainment areas for larger particles (PM10). See U.S. EPA, “Green Book,” at
http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/index.html.
4 See testimony of Barry R. Wallerstein, Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District, at
“Legislative Hearing on the Marine Vessel Emissions Reduction Act of 2007, S. 1499,” U.S. Senate, Committee on
Environment and Public Works, February 14, 2008, p. 1.
ȱȱȱ
ŗȱ
ȱȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
While the Los Angeles-Long Beach area may be the most extreme example, the problem is not
limited to L.A. or even to California. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
more than 40 U.S. ports nationwide are located in “nonattainment” areas5 for ozone, fine
particulates, or both.6 In addition, according to EPA, “... the problem is not limited to port areas
alone. Santa Barbara County, which has no commercial ports, estimates that by 2020, 67 percent
of its NOx inventory will come from shipping traffic transiting the California coast.... ”7
Oceangoing ships are perhaps the largest source of port emissions, but they are not the only
source. Ports make use of tug boats to guide ships entering and leaving the harbor. Ports make
connections to land-based transportation networks, such as railroads, and they generally operate
large truck terminals. Ships at rest in the port need a source of power, which often comes from
running auxiliary engines. And, in many cases, a harbor is served by substantial local boat or
barge traffic, sometimes including ferry service. Thus, addressing the sources of pollution in a
port may require a multi-faceted approach.
ȱ¡ȱ ȱ
Pollution from ships (not only air pollution, but pollution of all kinds) is governed by the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, first negotiated through the
International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 1973. The Convention, known as MARPOL (for
“MARine” “POLlution”) 73/78 (the dates referring to the 1973 Convention and its 1978
amendments), applies to all ships of the flag states that have ratified it. About 150 countries,
representing over 98.7% of world shipping tonnage, have done so. The Convention also applies to
ships of non-signatory states while they are operating in waters under the jurisdiction of parties to
MARPOL. Six annexes to MARPOL 73/78 cover various sources of pollution from ships (oil,
noxious liquids, sewage, garbage, etc.) and provide an overarching framework for
implementation.
ȱȱ¡ȱ ȱ
Annex VI of the Convention, which was adopted in 1997 but did not enter into force until 2005,
addresses the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships. The annex represents a small first step
toward controlling such pollution, particularly if one compares it to pollution controls that the
United States and other developed countries impose on land-based sources. Annex VI:
• limits the sulfur content of the fuel used in oceangoing ships (bunker fuel) to
4.5% (45,000 parts per million (ppm)). By comparison, highway diesel fuel in the
United States is limited to 15 ppm;
• allows special sulfur oxide (SOx) Emission Control Areas (currently the Baltic
Sea, the North Sea, and the English Channel), where the sulfur content of fuel is
limited to 1.5% (15,000 ppm) or SOx emissions are limited;
5 That is, areas where air quality is worse than the health-based standard for ozone, particulates, or both.
6 Testimony of Bryan Wood-Thomas, U.S. EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, at “Legislative Hearing on
the Marine Vessel Emissions Reduction Act of 2007, S. 1499,” U.S. Senate, Committee on Environment and Public
Works, February 14, 2008, p. 2.
7 Ibid.
ȱȱȱ
Řȱ
ȱȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
• limits NOx emissions from new engines and engines that have undergone major
conversions to a range of 9.8-17.0 grams per kilowatt-hour (g/kwh), depending
on the rated engine speed. By comparison, power plants in the eastern United
States are limited to 0.45-0.73 g/kwh;
• allows the regulation of emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from
tankers by parties to Annex VI in their ports and terminals;
• prohibits emissions of ozone-depleting substances;
• prohibits the incineration on ships of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs, a class of
toxic chemicals widely used in electrical transformers until the 1970s). In the
United States, PCB production and use were banned in 1976, and disposal has
been strictly regulated since then; and
• prohibits the incineration of garbage containing more than traces of heavy metals
and of refined petroleum products containing halogen compounds.
ȱȱǻǯǯȱŗŗŖȬŘŞŖǼȱ
The United States is a party to MARPOL 73/78 and most of its annexes, but did not enact
legislation to implement Annex VI until the summer of 2008. The Senate gave its consent to
ratification of Annex VI on April 7, 2006,8 but Congress needed to enact implementing legislation
before the United States could submit the instrument of ratification. The House passed H.R. 802
to implement the annex on March 26, 2007. The Senate passed the bill, with an amendment, June
26, 2008, and the House agreed to the Senate amendment July 8. The President signed the bill
July 21, 2008 (P.L. 110-280).
The Annex VI standards apply to: any oceangoing vessel that is registered in the United States;
ships of any registry in ports, shipyards, terminals, or the internal waters of the United States;
ships of any registry bound for or departing from the United States, while they are located in the
navigable waters of the United States or designated emission control areas; and ships bearing the
flag of any country that has ratified Annex VI traveling through U.S. waters or designated
emission control areas, even if they are not bound for or departing from a U.S. destination. To the
extent consistent with international law, the Annex also applies to any other ship in the U.S.
exclusive economic zone.
ȱȱ¡ȱ ȱ
The United States has participated in negotiations to strengthen Annex VI, and more stringent
limits on both fuels and emissions were approved by the IMO October 10, 2008. The new limits
cut the allowable sulfur content of bunker fuel to 3.5% (35,000 ppm) starting January 1, 2012,
with a further drop to 0.5% (5,000 ppm) on January 1, 2020. This provision will have little effect
prior to 2020, since bunker fuel currently averages 27,000 ppm sulfur, substantially cleaner than
the 2012 requirements. New limits will also apply in Sulfur Emission Control Areas—currently
the Baltic Sea, North Sea, and English Channel, but potentially including other areas. Sulfur
content in those areas, currently capped at 1.5% (15,000 ppm), will be capped at 1.0% (10,000
ppm) effective July 1, 2010, and 0.10% (1,000 ppm) effective January 1, 2015.
8 The Senate consented to ratification through Treaty Document 108-7.
ȱȱȱ
řȱ
ȱȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
IMO also agreed to reductions in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from marine engines, with the
new standards to be phased. For engines installed on ships constructed after January 1, 2011, but
before 2016, NOx limits would be reduced about 20% to a range of 7.7 to 14.4 g/kWh, depending
on the rated engine speed. For engines installed on ships constructed after January 1, 2016, the
limits would be reduced about 80%, to a range of 2.0 to 3.4 g/kWh while ships are operating in
designated emission control areas. Outside emission control areas, the prior (7.7 to 14.4 g/kWh)
limit would apply.
These new Annex VI regulations will enter into force unless more than one third of the
contracting parties to the convention or parties representing 50% of the gross tonnage of the
world’s merchant fleet notify IMO of their objection prior to January 1, 2010.9
ȱȱ
Before Congress enacted the Annex VI implementing legislation, EPA had already promulgated
regulations under the Clean Air Act that were as stringent as Annex VI, and shipping companies
were already generally meeting the standards. These so-called “Tier 1” standards were
promulgated February 28, 2003, and went into effect in 2004.10 In addition, in October 1999, EPA
established a voluntary certification program so that engine manufacturers could show that their
engines are compliant with Annex VI. EPA believes that all marine diesel engines sold in the U.S.
since January 1, 2000, to which the annex applies (i.e., those rated above 130 kilowatts), meet
Annex VI requirements.
ȱȱ
In addition to the bill to implement Annex VI, other legislation on ship emissions saw committee
action in the 110th Congress. S. 1499, reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee,
July 10, 2008 (S.Rept. 110-413), would have amended the Clean Air Act to require oceangoing
vessels entering or leaving U.S. ports and offshore terminals to use fuel that contains no more
than 1,000 parts per million of sulfur (a 98% reduction from the requirement of Annex VI)
beginning on December 31, 2010. The restrictions would have applied within 200 miles of the
West Coast and within such distance of the East or Gulf coast or the shoreline of the Great Lakes
or St. Lawrence Seaway as EPA determined to be appropriate.11 The Administrator would have
been allowed to provide an alternative mechanism of compliance if he determined that a vessel
employed a control technology that reduced emissions of sulfur oxides and particulate matter to at
least the same degree as the reduction that would be achieved through compliance with the sulfur
content limitation.
In addition to the fuel standards, the bill would have required EPA to promulgate emission control
standards for main and auxiliary engines on oceangoing vessels that enter or leave U.S. ports. The
9 “International Maritime Panel Sets Limits on Ships’ Sulfur, Nitrogen Oxide Emissions,” Daily Environment Report,
October 14, 2008, p. A-6. For a copy of Annex VI as revised by the October 10, 2008 agreement, see the IMO website
at http://www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/data_id%3D23760/176%2858%29.pdf.
10 68 Federal Register 9746, February 28, 2003.
11 The Administrator may promulgate regulations that permit sulfur content as high as 2,000 ppm for a specified period
if he determines that compliance with the 1,000 ppm limit is not technically feasible by December 31, 2010.
ȱȱȱ
Śȱ
ȱȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
standards would have required the greatest achievable emission reduction for four pollutants
(nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide) effective January 1,
2012. The standards could have taken into account the feasibility, benefits, and costs of specific
technologies; could have distinguished new from in-use engines; and could have varied
depending on the age of the engine.
A similar bill, H.R. 2548, was introduced by Representative Solis in the House, but no action was
taken there.
ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱ
Beyond Annex VI and the Senate and House bills of the 110th Congress, potentially more
stringent actions are being taken at the federal, state, and local level to address emissions from
marine engines.
ȱȱ
EPA has begun to regulate ship emissions under existing Clean Air Act authority. Thus far, the
regulations are relatively weak, and it will be at least 2014 before the agency’s regulations impose
stringent requirements in most cases. Also, when the more stringent requirements do take effect,
they will apply only to new and remanufactured engines, so improvements resulting from the
standards will be gradual.
¢ȱřȱȱ
EPA categorizes ship engines in three categories. The largest of these engines—the main engines
on oceangoing ships—are diesel engines with a per-cylinder displacement at or above 30 liters.
These are referred to as “Category 3” engines. As noted, the agency has already promulgated
regulations equivalent to Annex VI for these engines under the Clean Air Act. But, as the agency
stated on its website, “There is an opportunity to gain large additional public-health benefits from
Category 3 marine diesel engines through the application of advanced technology emission
controls including high-efficiency catalytic aftertreatment.”12 The agency began the process of
developing more stringent regulations, by issuing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
December 7, 2007. It plans to finalize new Category 3 regulations by December 17, 2009.
Whether or not the agency promulgates more stringent Category 3 emission standards, they may
have little effect on the overall level of pollution from Category 3 ships, since they will only
apply to engines installed on vessels flagged or registered in the United States. In 2007, only
6.7% of the world’s ships (and only 1.2%, if measured by carrying capacity) were registered in
the United States.13
12 U.S. EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, “Oceangoing Vessels,” at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/
oceanvessels.htm.
13 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Review of Maritime Transport 2007, pp. 32, 149-153 at
http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/rmt2007_en.pdf.
ȱȱȱ
śȱ
ȱȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
¢ȱŗȱȱŘȱȱ
By contrast, the Category 1 and 2 engines (those smaller than 7 liters per cylinder, and those from
7 to 30 liters per cylinder, respectively), are used in boats or ships that operate in U.S. waters—
tugs, ferries, Great Lakes freighters, fishing boats, and recreational boats, for example—virtually
all of which are registered in the United States. And, compared to Category 3, EPA is further
along in regulating the emissions of these categories. Regulations that will reduce emissions of
NOx from new or remanufactured engines by 24% and emissions of particulates by 12% when
fully implemented, were promulgated in 1999 and began taking effect between 2004 and 2007.
More stringent standards were promulgated May 6, 2008, and will take effect between now and
2014.14 The final 2014 standards will require ultra low sulfur diesel fuel (15 ppm sulfur) and high
efficiency catalytic emission controls capable of reducing particulate matter emissions by 90%
and NOx emissions by 80%, along with “sizeable reductions” of hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide,
and air toxic emissions, according to EPA.15
ȱȱȱȱ
California, being more adversely affected than most other areas, has played a leadership role in
identifying and implementing emission reduction measures, as well. The state has focused on port
activities, in addition to fuel and emission standards. California’s measures fall into four
categories: (1) requiring the use of lower sulfur fuel; (2) requiring emission controls on harbor
vessels and shore-side equipment; (3) providing alternative (electric) power to ships while they
are docked at marine terminals ; and (4) providing grants for the re-powering of harbor craft and
short-haul trucks with cleaner engines.
ȱȱȱ
The California Air Resources Board (CARB), at a July 24, 2008, meeting, approved regulations
that would require both U.S.- and foreign-flagged vessels sailing within 24 miles of its coast to
use low sulfur fuels in both main and auxiliary engines beginning July 1, 2009. Compliant fuels
are marine diesel oil with 5,000 ppm or less sulfur or marine gas oil with 15,000 ppm or less
sulfur. In January 2012, sulfur in both types of fuel would be limited to 1,000 ppm. The rules
replace low sulfur fuel requirements that the state implemented in 2007, but which were
overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in February 2008.16 The original
rules would have set a 1,000 ppm limit two years earlier, in 2010.
14 73 Federal Register 25097, May 6, 2008.
15 For information, see U.S. EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, “Diesel Boats and Ships,” at
http://www.epa.gov/oms/marine.htm.
16 Pacific Merchant Marine Ass’n v. Goldstene, 517 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2008). The court held that the state’s Marine
Vessel Rules were preempted by the federal Clean Air Act because the regulations set emission standards for marine
engines without California having received a waiver from EPA to do so. California has since asked EPA for a waiver to
enforce the original rules, in addition to developing the rules applying only to fuels. If the waiver is granted, the
original (2007) requirements would be enforced. See “California Air Board Seeks Federal Waiver to Enforce Ship
Auxiliary Engine Rules,” Daily Environment Report, May 13, 2008, p. A-1. See also, CARB, “Advisory on Plans to
Implement a Proposed ARB Regulation on Fuel Sulfur and Other Operational Requirements for Ocean-Going
Vessels,” October 2008, at http://www.arb.ca.gov/ports/marinevess/documents/advisory1008.pdf.
ȱȱȱ
Ŝȱ
ȱȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱ
California has, in general, led the nation in imposing more stringent requirements on diesel
engines. In addition, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have developed procedures to
require that trucks serving the ports will be replaced by newer, less-emitting models. According to
a description of the ports’ plan:
... all pre-1989 trucks will be barred from entering the ports’ terminals beginning Oct. 1
[2008]. Effective Jan. 1, 2010, all 1989-1993 trucks and any 1994-2003 trucks without
certified pollution control equipment will be banned. By Jan. 1, 2012, all trucks entering the
port must meet the 2007 federal standard for heavy-duty diesel trucks....
A $35 gate fee for each 20-foot container unit that passes through the port will generate
funds to help underwrite subsidies to upgrade and replace trucks.17
In addition, CARB has adopted regulations for harbor craft, including ferries, tugboats, and tow
boats, which will require the replacement of unregulated engines beginning in 2009, and will
accelerate the adoption of EPA’s Category 1 and Category 2 marine engine pollution controls.
These rules became effective November 19, 2008.18
ȱ ȱ
In June 2004, the Port of Los Angeles opened the world’s first Alternative Maritime Power
(AMP) terminal for container ships, where cargo ships can plug in to power instead of operating
auxiliary engines to generate electricity while at berth. The electrification project was the result of
a lawsuit brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council and other groups, who sued the city
claiming it failed to fully weigh air quality and other environmental impacts of the new container
terminal. As a result of the suit, a state appeals court halted work on the terminal in October 2002,
and Los Angeles subsequently agreed to electrify the terminal to cut diesel emissions while ships
are at docks, among other measures.19 A second terminal was outfitted with AMP capability in
2005. To encourage shippers to use the AMP facilities, in December 2004, the Los Angeles Board
of Harbor Commissioners passed a policy resolution to help each existing Port customer
underwrite the cost of building or retrofitting their first container or cruise ship to run on
electrical power when docked, a cost estimated at $320,000 - $830,000 per vessel.20 Cruise ship
terminals in San Francisco and Seattle are also implementing AMP, and CARB obtained final
approval of regulations to require the use of AMP at the state’s six largest ports, in December
2008.21
17 “Los Angeles Harbor Commission Approves Program to Replace Older Diesel Trucks,” Daily Environment Report,
March 24, 2008, p. A-9.
18 Information on these regulations can be found at http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/chc07/chc07.htm.
19 Natural Resources Defense Council v. City of Los Angeles, 126 Cal. Rptr. 2d 615 (Cal. App. 2002).
20 See Port of Los Angeles, “Alternative Marine Power,” at http://www.portoflosangeles.org/environment/
alt_maritime_power.asp. Also see “Alternative Maritime Power “Off and Running,” presented by Eric Caris, at
http://www.ffca2006.com/documents/presentations/marine/Eric%20Caris.pdf.
21 See California Air Resources Board, “Rulemaking to Consider Adoption of Proposed Regulations to Reduce
Emissions from Diesel Auxiliary Engines on Ocean-Going Vessels While at Berth at a California Port,” at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/shorepwr07/shorepwr07.htm. The December 2008 regulation will require container
vessels, passenger vessels, and reefers (refrigerated ships for perishable cargo) to reduce on-board power generation
50% by 2014, 70% by 2017, and 80% by 2020.
ȱȱȱ
ŝȱ
ȱȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ
CARB, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and the South Coast Air Quality Management
District also intend to provide substantial amounts of financial support for the replacement of
older, high-emitting engines and the conversion to lower emitting power sources. CARB awarded
$247 million in FY2007-08 funds for “goods movement emission reduction” projects (about $137
million of which was designated for ports) and another $250 million has been appropriated in
FY2008-09. CARB notes, however, that state funding for bond programs is suspended, pending
“effective resolution of the current fiscal year budget crisis and a restoration of the state’s ability
to access the bond market.” This affects FY2007-08 funds awarded to local agencies under the
Goods Movement Program, as well as the FY 2008-09 funds that have not yet been awarded.22
According to CARB, most requests for the funds have come from trucking companies, which
would replace older engines or trucks with new models that reduce emissions as much as 90%.23
In addition to the CARB funding, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, as noted earlier, will
provide subsidies for truck and engine replacement from a fund generated by a $35 to $70 per
container fee. The grants will provide $20,000 for the cost of each truck compliant with EPA’s
2007 emission standards used by port concessionaires. The ports began distributing $44 million in
incentive checks in December 2008, for the first 2,200 low-emission trucks purchased under the
program.24
These grants have also experienced funding problems. The per-container fees that are to fund the
system were to have been collected beginning in November 2008, but implementation was
delayed by the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), which maintains that the ports’ program
(referred to as the PortCheck Agreement) is anti-competitive and interferes with interstate
commerce. FMC delayed implementation of the fees by requiring two 45-day review periods; the
Commission has also filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where it
seeks an injunction to block implementation of the fees.25 These actions delayed the start of fee
collection until February 18, 2009.
Besides state and local funding, U.S. EPA has become a source of funds for diesel emission
reductions at ports. The stimulus package (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009, P.L. 111-5) contained $300 million for diesel emission reduction grants. This money may
be used for purposes authorized under Title VII, Subtitle G of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L.
109-58), including retrofit of diesel trucks, marine engines, and cargo handling equipment, not
only in California, but in other states as well. There is an additional $60 million in diesel emission
reduction grant money in H.R. 1105, the Fiscal Year 2009 Omnibus Appropriation bill, as
introduced.
22 Although funds are appropriated to ARB as part of the state’s budget process, ARB must obtain the cash through the
Pooled Money Investment Board. See CARB, “Prop 1B/Goods Movement Update” (e-mail to listserve on February 4,
2009), at http://www.arb.ca.gov/bonds/gmbond/docs/2_4_2009_email_update_to_listserv.pdf.
23 See CARB, “Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement in California: Update on Implementation,”
Staff Presentation, Air Resources Board Meeting , Oakland, CA, April 24, 2008 at ftp://ftp.arb.ca.gov/carbis/board/
books/2008/042408/08-4-7pres.pdf.
24 “Port of Los Angeles Begins Estimated $44 Million Pay-Out Process to Clean Truck Program Concessionaires that
Applied for Port’s 2007-Compliant Incentive Program,” Press Release, December 23, 2008, at
http://www.portoflosangeles.org/environment/ctp.asp.
25 Federal Maritime Commission v. City of Los Angeles, California, No. 1:08-cv-01895 (D. D.C. filed Oct. 31, 2008).
ȱȱȱ
Şȱ
ȱȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ ȱ
Ships are also an important source of greenhouse gas (GHG) pollutants. Although there is a wide
range of estimates, the International Maritime Organization’s consensus is that international
shipping emitted 843 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide, 2.7% of global CO2 emissions in
2007. Including domestic shipping and fishing vessels larger than 100 gross tonnes, the amount
would increase to 1.019 billion tonnes, 3.3% of global emissions.26 At these levels, only five
countries (the United States, China, Russia, India, and Japan) account for a higher percentage of
the world total of CO2 emissions.27
In addition to the CO2 emissions, the low quality fuel (bunker fuel) that ships use and the absence
of pollution controls result in significant emissions of black carbon and nitrogen oxides, which
also contribute to climate change. The refrigerants used on ships (hydrofluorcarbons and
perfluorocarbons—HFCs and PFCs) are also potent greenhouse gases when released to the
atmosphere. Thus, the total impact of ships on climate may be somewhat greater than 3%.
ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
For the most part, these emissions occur in international waters, and the sources are vessels not
registered in the United States. Addressing the emissions, therefore, is likely to require
international agreement. On the international level, however, there has been disagreement over
who should take responsibility to abate GHG emissions. Rather than cover these emissions under
the Kyoto Protocol, nations agreed to look to the IMO for sector-specific provisions to reduce
GHG emissions from shipping.28
The IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee has begun negotiations on the issue, and
has stated that the issue is “high on the Committee’s agenda.” According to the Committee’s
website:
the IMO is currently working in accordance with a work plan, due to culminate in 2009 with
the adoption of a binding instrument. The Organization is working to have measures in place
to control GHG emissions from international shipping before the first commitment period
under the Kyoto Protocol expires at the end of 2011. The Committee is also expected to
decide whether GHG regulations should form part of an existing convention or whether a
new instrument should be developed. 29
Final adoption of an IMO regime to control GHG emissions is planned for the 59th meeting of the
Marine Environment Protection Committee in July 2009.
26 International Maritime Organization, Updated Study on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships, Executive Summary
of Phase 1 Report, 1st September 2008, p. 5 at regserver.unfccc.int/seors/attachment/file_storage/6ep77qqvcujba7k.doc.
Both estimates exclude emissions from naval vessels. Cited below as “IMO 2008 Update.”
27 Oceana, Shipping Impacts on Climate: A Source with Solutions, p. 2, at
http://www.oceana.org/fileadmin/oceana/uploads/Climate_Change/Oceana_Shipping_Report.pdf.
28 Under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, emissions from internationally used fuels (both ships and
aviation) are calculated by countries but reported separately from national emissions, such as those subject to the
United Nations Kyoto Protocol.
29 “IMO Continues Work on Regime to Control GHG Emissions,” Press Release, 07 October 2008, at
http://www.climate-l.org/2008/10/imo-continues-w.html.
ȱȱȱ
şȱ
ȱȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
As with many other sectors, the European Union has been a driving force in getting international
consideration of controlling the shipping sector’s GHG emissions. The EU has considered adding
the shipping industry to its cap-and-trade system, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), but
for now is deferring to the IMO. Approving a broad package of climate measures on December
17, 2008, the European Parliament left shipping out of the package, pending the outcome of the
IMO discussions. Satu Hassi, a Finnish lawmaker from the Parliament’s Green Group, who
oversaw negotiations on emission reduction targets for non-ETS sectors, was quoted as saying the
“EU will act unilaterally” should IMO discussions not produce sufficient results.30
ȱǯȱȱȱȱ
Ocean-going ships are already by far the most efficient means of goods movement. As noted by
the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD):
While in absolute terms GHG emissions from international shipping are significant, in
relative terms maritime transport – in particular where larger ships are used – surpasses other
modes of transport in terms of fuel efficiency and climate friendliness. On a per ton
kilometre (km) basis and depending on ship sizes, CO2 emissions from shipping are lower
than emissions from other modes. For example, emissions from rail could be 3 to 4 times
higher than emissions from tankers, while emissions from road and air transport could,
respectively, be 5 to 150 times and 54 to 150 times higher. Equally, in terms of fuel
consumption (kilowatt (kW)/ton/km), a container ship (3,700 twenty-foot equivalent units
(TEUs)), for instance, is estimated to consume on average 77 times less energy than a freight
aircraft (Boeing 747-400), about 7 times less than a heavy truck and about 3 times less than
rail.31
But, in general, shipping does not compete with other modes of transport. Only in a small number
of cases involving high value or perishable commodities, or relatively short distances between
countries that also have land links, are mode shifts between shipping and air, truck, or rail
transport possible. Ships move more than 80% of the volume of international trade, and are likely
to continue doing so. As the overall volume of trade grows, GHG emissions from shipping are
projected to be 2.4 to 3 times the current level by 2050 unless control measures are adopted.32
ȱȱȱȂȱ
ȱȱ
A number of measures might be taken to reduce the shipping sector’s GHG emissions. One of the
more common suggestions is that ships operate at lower speeds. The IMO’s 2000 study of GHG
emissions from ships concluded that a 10% reduction in speed would result in a 23.3% reduction
in emissions.33 Slowing speeds is not without problems. According to the 2000 IMO report:
30 “European Parliament Gives Final Approval to Far-Reaching Climate Protection Strategy,” Daily Environment
Report, December 18, 2008, p. A-1.
31 “Maritime Transport and the Climate Change Challenge,” Note by the UNCTAD Secretariat, 9 December 2008,
prepared for the Multi-Year Expert Meeting on Transport and Trade Facilitation, Geneva, Switzerland, 16-18 February
2009, at http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/cimem1d2_en.pdf.
32 IMO 2008 Update, op. cit., p. 5.
33 Norwegian Marine Technology Research Institute – MARINTEK et al., for the International Maritime Organization
(IMO), Study of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships, March 2000, p. 17, at http://unfccc.int/files/
methods_and_science/emissions_from_intl_transport/application/pdf/imoghgmain.pdf. This one measure (slow
steaming) dwarfed the potential of any of the other technical and operational measures examined in the IMO study: in
(continued...)
ȱȱȱ
ŗŖȱ
ȱȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
For most ship engines, running at reduced speed / slow steaming may ... cause problems.
Such problems may be vibrations (critical RPM of engine / shaft) and accelerating sooting in
the exhausted gas channel. Sooting problems are normally coincident with incomplete
combustion and increasing GHG emission per fuel unit consumed. For ships permanently
operating at slow speed, however, engine modifications / de-rating may be a solution.34
In addition, of course, cargo owners may consider the lost time in reaching the ship’s destination
to be more valuable than the fuel and GHG savings. Thus, in a competitive market with low fuel
costs, ship owners will tend to offer as swift a service as they can safely provide. Nevertheless, it
is possible without changes in technology or fuels to achieve significant GHG emission
reductions.
Cleaner fuels and emission controls could also lower emissions, particularly if one focuses on
emissions of black carbon and nitrogen oxides. Like slow steaming, these could be implemented
without the need to replace ship engines or the ships themselves.
The use of alternative power in ports may also reduce GHG emissions, if the shore power is
derived from low-carbon sources such as natural gas, or no-carbon sources (hydropower, wind,
solar, or nuclear).
New ships may be able to reduce emissions further through better hull design, more efficient
propulsion, and propeller coatings, among other options. A detailed discussion of options (in the
context of Navy ships) is provided in CRS Report RL33360, Navy Ship Propulsion Technologies:
Options for Reducing Oil Use - Background for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
ȱ
As pollution from cars, trucks, and land-based stationary sources has been more tightly controlled
over the last 40 years, the contribution of ships and port operations to air pollution in port cities
has become more important. Simultaneously, foreign trade has grown dramatically, adding to the
burden of pollution from these sources. Thus, pollution from ships and the port operations that
serve them is now among the most important sources of sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides,
particulates, and other pollutants in numerous U.S. cities.
Controlling these sources of pollution is complicated by the fact that most oceangoing ships are
registered in foreign countries. Thus, initial efforts at control were focused on international
negotiations through the IMO, which established a basic structure (MARPOL Annex VI) that may
be the basis of more stringent future controls. Negotiating, ratifying, and implementing MARPOL
agreements is time-consuming, however, and thus far, has not resulted in more than token levels
of regulation. Thus, EPA and state and local agencies (particularly those in California) have begun
to address pollution from ships using the Clean Air Act and comparable state authorities.
(...continued)
the short term (10 years), it accounted for nearly 60% of the total reductions identified; over a 20-year horizon, it still
accounted for 43% of potential reductions.
34 Ibid., p. 91.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŗȱ
ȱȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Not all pollution from marine vessels comes from foreign ships. Smaller craft, such as ferries,
tugboats, and fishing boats do tend to be registered in the United States, and are thus more
amenable to control. Even for these smaller craft, the technical issues can be complex, as the
vessels include a wide variety of engine sizes and ship configurations. Safety also poses
important considerations, as ships must be able to depend on their sources of power in what may
be extreme weather conditions and while dealing with a variety of navigational hazards.
Because ships and port operations are now such significant sources of air pollution, further
regulatory and legislative efforts to control their emissions are likely. In addition, ships are a large
and growing source of greenhouse gas emissions; how and whether to regulate these emissions
are the subject of IMO discussions and may enter into the larger debate over legislation to address
climate change.
Congress has begun efforts to address these problems, and enacted legislation to implement
MARPOL Annex VI in July 2008. But this is likely to be just the start of Congressional attention
to air pollution from ships. Action at the state level, in the courts, and at U.S. EPA will continue to
bring the issue to Congress’s attention, with numerous opportunities for oversight and legislation.
ȱȱ ȱ
James E. McCarthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov, 7-7225
ȱȱȱ
ŗŘȱ