Oceangoing container ships make more than 10,000 visits to ports in the United States from around the world each year. Delivery of goods to ports and from there to U.S. consumers is powered by diesel fuel each step of the way. Diesel fuel quality ranges from notoriously filthy bunker fuel that powers ships, to lower quality grades for off-road vehicles, to lower sulfur grades recently required for on-road trucks. Burning diesel fuel releases health threatening toxic air contaminants, smog forming air pollutants, and climate changing greenhouse gases.

Air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping are bad and getting worse. The combination of growing port activity, the densely populated regions where most ports are located, and the prevailing onshore wind patterns that accumulate, rather than disperse, port air pollution creates a ‘perfect storm’ of threats to public health. Most U.S. ports are now among the largest sources of air pollution in their cities and progress toward reducing that pollution has been slow. Public concern is rising, however, and efforts to grapple with the complex challenge of reducing air pollution from ports are finally gathering momentum.

Climate and human health impacts from port air pollution do not have to occur—a wide range of pollution control strategies are now available, and many squelch the thirst for imported oil in the process. These strategies include switching to cleaner alternative fuels and changing operating procedures to improve efficiency. Ports around the country, particularly at the adjacent ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, California, are beginning to grapple with air pollution problems and working to develop clean air programs that include use of alternative fuels.

The backbone of air pollution control efforts at U.S. container ports today is efforts to reduce emissions from diesel-powered equipment through the following steps:

•            the use of newer diesel engines that pollute less;

•            the installation of pollution control equipment;

•            and switching to grades of diesel fuel containing lower sulfur content.



Introducing cleaner diesel equipment in new equipment purchases will soon be required by public law, however, as it already is for vehicles in other economic sectors. Moreover, continuing to run diesel equipment does nothing to diversify fuel supply away from oil.

The best way to lower air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions and diversify fuel supply at U.S. container ports is to use alternative fuels or advanced technologies. Fortunately, important steps are being taken that are leading global efforts to replace diesel with alternative fuels and advanced technologies.

Natural gas is currently the leading alternative fuel being deployed in port vehicles. There is also interest in biodiesel, particularly at the two ports in the Northwest. Hybrid electric vehicle technology is beginning to enter the port market, too.

Six programs are currently underway at the California ports to deploy fleets of natural gas powered cargo handling vehicles. Programs to replace diesel fuel with liquefied natural gas (LNG) are underway at the three largest container ports in California—Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland. The two ports of Seattle and Tacoma on Puget Sound in the state of Washington are spearheading the use of renewable biodiesel blends in their vehicle fleets.

Converting to cargo handling equipment with hybrid electric drive trains offers another option to reduce air pollution at ports. Although hybrid electric drive trains raise vehicle costs substantially, they reduce fuel use, emissions and operating costs. Use of hybrid electric technology at ports is only beginning. A project to develop hybrid-powered cargo handling equipment has been underway at Long Beach since September 2006. In September 2007, the EPA announced a project to develop and test a new EPA-patented hybrid technology on a yard tractor at a PATH container facility in New Jersey.

The electricity used to power a ship’s onboard lights and other non-propulsion equipment while at berth is normally generated by the auxiliary engines onboard the ships burning whatever quality diesel is allowed in ships entering the port. This ranges from 1,000 to 27,000 ppm sulfur. Even the cleanest ship fuel is still much dirtier than the 15 ppm sulfur fuel now required for U.S. on road vehicle engines. Shore power, often called cold ironing or alternative marine power, is an alternative to generating power onboard ship.

Projects to extend grid power to the ports are underway in Los Angeles and Long Beach. Oakland is the first port in the U.S. to introduce cold ironing technology at a container terminal that produces electricity on the dock using a portable natural gas-fired generator. The unit was publicly demonstrated in port operations in July 2007.

In Seattle, no container ships are currently using cold ironing energy supplies. However, two cruise lines, Princess Cruises and Holland America, now use electrical shore power rather engine power when their ships dock in the city. This project eliminates 35 metric tons of turbine engine fuel per ship call, resulting in a total reduction of 1,400 metric tons of fuel during the 2005 cruise season.

Transoceanic ships are the largest source of air pollution at container ports. This pollution is due to the use of bunker fuel, the dirtiest grade of diesel, which is allowed under international law. The most polluting fuel contains 45,000 ppm of sulfur, although most bunker fuel in common use contains about 27,000 ppm of sulfur.

The two most practical options for U.S. ports to pursue to lower air pollution emissions from ships traversing port waters are to require fuel switching to better quality fuel while operating in port waters and to implement speed reductions. Both are being done at several U.S. ports.

Switching to cleaner diesel fuels requires ships to load limited quantities of cleaner fuels in separate auxiliary tanks. Beginning in 2007, CARB regulations require ships entering California waters to burn distillate fuel containing less than 2,000 ppm sulfur in their auxiliary engines while proceeding to port and in their main engines while at berth. Since the beginning of 2007, this higher quality fuel must be burned within 24 nautical miles of the port.

The problem of air pollution from oceangoing ships while in ports is severe, but it is only one part of the global shipping industry that is in dire need of reducing its use of bunker fuel. Large transoceanic ships emit 14 percent of the nitrogen oxides, 5 percent of the sulfur oxides, and 2 percent of the carbon dioxide of all transport related emissions. According to a March 2007 report by the International Council on Clean Transportation, they emit more sulfur dioxide than the entirety of the world’s cars, trucks and buses combined. These vessels are poorly regulated and their share of polluting emissions is likely to double by 2020, unless ambitious pollution control efforts are mounted before then.

Ships that refuse to comply with local fuel quality or speed reduction requirements often have the option to select a different port based solely on its weaker environmental standards. The best approach to reducing pollution from ships, therefore, might be to negotiate environmental standards that can be implemented internationally and applied to all ships visiting all ports.

In the long term, depletion of oil resources and environmental pressure are likely to force the international marine shipping industry to switch to another fuel altogether. There is already some experience with natural gas use in ships.

Financing port clean-ups

The total cost for reducing air pollution at container ports in the U.S. will be huge. The total needed nationwide between now and 2020 will probably exceed $20 billion, or roughly $1.5 billion per year. To meet these needs, full use of all traditional funding sources, public and private, will be necessary. To date, most of the money funding port clean-up efforts has come from government sources.

The shipping industry, private terminal operators and railroads have contributed only modest sums to date to finance clean-up programs. Sound Energy Solutions in Long Beach is an example of a company that has contributed more than $1.0 million in private sector funds to demonstrate the use of LNG in cargo handling equipment. Another example is Maersk Line, which is conducting a pilot fuel switching program that is expected to remove 400 tons of vessel related emissions from the company’s fleet when it operates in California waters. Maersk has voluntarily switched from bunker fuel to a cleaner distillate fuel. BNSF railroad has pioneered clean-up efforts at several of its rail yards serving ports.

The alternative fuels industry is also contributing money for port clean up. Clean Energy, for example, is currently investing $55 million to build an LNG production plant and $10 million to build the fueling infrastructure at the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach. The company is financing these investments using money obtained from a successful initial public stock offering completed in May 2007.

California debated a strategy in 2006 that could provide a good model for a U.S. program to raise money for port clean-up. Senate Bill (SB) 760 passed the California legislature in September 2006 but was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The bill would have established a $30 per container fee for all containers unloaded at California ports. Although a public program, the container fee would have collected revenue solely from industry causing the air pollution.

Recommendations: call for action

Energy Futures has developed five recommendations for public and private sector decision makers. The hope is that these recommendations will be considered as the national debate about how to combat the growing air pollution at U.S. container ports moves forward.



Promote Use of Alternative Fuels and Advanced Technologies for Port Clean Ups.

The ability of diesel to meet the energy and environmental demands posed by container ports is already strained. Fuel supplies are insecure, costs are rising and pollution control strategies are not likely to achieve emission controls needed to protect public health as port business in constrained urban areas grows, especially if container traffic doubles by 2020 as predicted.

Natural gas and biodiesel have already been shown to be viable substitutes for diesel fuel in port vehicles. Natural gas has the environmental advantages of lower tailpipe emissions, lower greenhouse gases and greater supply.

Hybrid electric technology is also promising and entering a broader demonstration phase in port vehicles.



Develop and Implement a National Port Clean-Up Strategy.

Every port has a unique competitive position, but all ports are major sources of air pollution that share the same portfolio of pollution control options. When operating alone to address environmental problems, each port must face the possibility that changes in its operating procedures could increase costs and place it at a competitive disadvantage to other ports.

Several ports recognize this dilemma and are acting cooperatively to prevent adverse competitive repercussions from clean-up efforts (Los Angeles and Long Beach, Puget Sound).

The next logical step is to develop a national port strategy at the federal government level.



Create a National Funding Mechanism to Finance Uniform and Comprehensive Port Clean Up.

 A new national initiative to reduce air pollution at ports will require significant funding to be effective. New funding sources will need to be created using tax revenues or credits, loan funds, or port user fees as the revenue source.

A national container fee, similar to the one under debate in California, is a potentially attractive option for the federal government as well. A $30 per TEU fee would raise $1.3 billion, if implemented nationally. This is roughly equal to the annual clean-up costs estimated in this study to be required between now and 2020. A fee at this level would make an inconsequential impact on the cost to the consumer goods imported by container ship. It would also raise shipping costs by less than 10 percent.



Advocate Global Environmental Standards in the International Arena.

National leadership in port clean-up efforts would boost the credibility of the U.S. in international arenas, especially at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) where maritime energy and environmental issues are debated. International diplomacy is vital to any long-term solution to port pollution issues.

When the U.S. elevates its involvement in IMO negotiation, the regulation of fuel standards for transoceanic ships is probably the most important priority. The entire global shipping industry is powered by notoriously filthy, but inexpensive, bunker fuel. The short-term goal must be to improve the fuel quality of the shipping industry’s fuel. An intermediate goal is to develop pollution control technology capable of reducing smokestack emissions. The long-term goal should be to replace bunker fuel entirely with an alternative fuel, such as natural gas or hydrogen, which are already being studied for use onboard ships.



Create a Clearinghouse of Public Information about Port Clean-Up Efforts.

There is a lot of information in the public domain and more attention is being focused on ports as decision makers are becoming more aware of the adverse consequences of port air pollution. Nonetheless, there remains an urgent need for a national clearinghouse of information about environmental issues at ports. This role is already being played in part by the AAPA, but its information is primarily for use by its members. Some individual ports and regulatory agencies also have excellent websites, but the information they post is mostly limited to local programs.  wt



James S. Cannon is President of Energy futures, Inc., a Colorado-based consultancy in energy and related environmental issues in the transportation sector.