The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach released a joint Clean Marine Fuel Feasibility Assessment on October 28, identifying liquefied natural gas (LNG) and methanol as the two most viable alternative marine fuels for the near and medium term, while outlining recommendations for developing the infrastructure needed to support their adoption.

Conducted as part of the ports' joint Green Shipping Corridor initiatives, the study examined which alternative fuels shipping lines are most likely to adopt, how local demand could develop, and what storage and bunkering infrastructure would be required. Together, the two ports form the busiest port complex in the United States, handling approximately 4,000 vessel calls annually. Emissions from oceangoing vessels remain the largest source of emissions within the port complex, making cleaner marine fuels an important component of the ports' Clean Air Action Plan.

According to the assessment, annual LNG demand at the two ports could reach approximately 65,000 to 115,000 metric tons by 2030, while methanol demand could range from 64,000 to 250,000 metric tons, depending on market conditions and the deployment of alternative-fuel vessels.

The study found that shipping lines are investing in multiple fuel technologies rather than converging on a single replacement for conventional marine fuels. Compared with hydrogen and ammonia, which continue to face greater technological and infrastructure challenges, LNG and methanol benefit from relatively mature vessel technologies and more established supply chains. However, the study emphasized that their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions depends heavily on how the fuels are produced and sourced, particularly the availability of renewable alternatives.

The findings also build on earlier research by the Port of Long Beach. A clean marine fuels white paper published in December 2024 included interviews with seven major shipping lines regularly calling at the port, six of which had established specific greenhouse gas reduction targets. The interviews highlighted high fuel costs, limited availability, inadequate storage and distribution infrastructure, and safety concerns as major barriers to alternative fuel adoption. The earlier study also found that investments in LNG were driven largely by local air quality considerations rather than greenhouse gas reductions, with methane slip remaining an environmental concern.

On infrastructure development, the latest joint assessment concluded that much of the storage and distribution infrastructure needed for initial methanol bunkering is already available or could be adapted, reducing the need for substantial upfront investment. It recommended a phased approach, including incentives for early methanol adoption, pilot bunkering projects, the use of existing facilities, and closer cooperation with regulators to establish clear safety and permitting requirements.

For LNG, the assessment recommended prioritizing existing ship-to-ship bunkering methods to ensure safe and efficient operations, rather than investing in major new storage facilities within the ports. It also noted that fuel prices, shipping line commitments, and regulatory requirements will play important roles in determining how quickly alternative marine fuels become more widely available.

Port of Long Beach CEO Dr. Noel Hacegaba said the study would help guide strategic investments in clean fuel infrastructure and support the transition of vessels serving trans-Pacific trade routes toward lower-emission operations.

The two ports expect to issue a joint Request for Proposals by the end of 2026, seeking projects that can demonstrate alternative fuel bunkering capabilities in San Pedro Bay. The findings will also inform future planning and collaboration with shipping lines, fuel suppliers, terminal operators, and government agencies as the ports work to expand access to lower-emission marine fuels.