Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach present fuel incentive scheme
The Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach explained their new fuel incentive scheme at a workshop in Long Beach today.
The presentation was led by the environmental team leaders from the two port authorities, Heather Tomley, Senior Environmental Specialist from Long Beach port, and Christopher Patton, Environmental Affairs Officer with Los Angeles port.
"It's a good partnership that brought us to this point," Tomley said.
The purpose of the workshop was to introduce the voluntary plan and outline its broad intention ahead of more specifics being decided.
"We're still in the development stages, working through the finer details over the next few weeks," she said.
Another workshop will be held in a month's time, according to Tomley, ahead of a predicted started date of July 1.
The fuel incentive scheme was approved by the two ports last month and Tomley explained today how the scheme fitted in with goals for cleaner fuels set out in the joint San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan.
The ports' scheme is intended to get early compliance with cleaner fuels for ships visiting the port and was put together with the input of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA) and several container lines.
For those joining the scheme, the port authorities will pay the cost difference between fuel oil bunkers and 0.2% marine gasoil (MGO) used in ship main engines.
The two principal conditions to comply is that ships must use MGO in auxiliary engines, as a buttress to California Air Resources Board (ARB) regulations, and ships must also comply with the ports' vessel speed reduction programme.
Tomley explained that ships could be compensated for MGO use out to 40 nautical miles (nm) from the ports, if they complied with the 12 knot speed programme out to 40 nm. Alternatively, if ships slowed from 12 nm, they could claim for MGO use from the 12 nm line.
Christopher Patton from the Los Angeles port authority thanked attendees at the meeting who had contributed to the scheme's development and went through the finer details as they were at the time.
Enrollment in the scheme would be necessary for shipowners, Patton said, and that enrollment could take place at any time starting next month.
Shipowners would supply vessel details, which would allow the port authorities to estimate the value of reimbursement likely to be available under the scheme. Detailed fuel records would need to be available for each vessel to allow auditing, including bunker receipts.
"We will not inspect every single set of records," Patton explained and said that it had yet to be determined how many ships would be audited.
The scheme will run until ARB fuel regulations for main engines enter into force in June next year, or other federal limits were enacted, Patton also noted. In the absence of such rules, it could be extended by the two port authorities.
Officials from the ports estimated today that the scheme would cost Long Beach port $9.9 million and Los Angeles port $8.6 million, based on 100% compliance out to 40 nm.
"We think it's a good model," Patton concluded and expected that industry participation would be high.
The presentation was led by the environmental team leaders from the two port authorities, Heather Tomley, Senior Environmental Specialist from Long Beach port, and Christopher Patton, Environmental Affairs Officer with Los Angeles port.
"It's a good partnership that brought us to this point," Tomley said.
The purpose of the workshop was to introduce the voluntary plan and outline its broad intention ahead of more specifics being decided.
"We're still in the development stages, working through the finer details over the next few weeks," she said.
Another workshop will be held in a month's time, according to Tomley, ahead of a predicted started date of July 1.
The fuel incentive scheme was approved by the two ports last month and Tomley explained today how the scheme fitted in with goals for cleaner fuels set out in the joint San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan.
The ports' scheme is intended to get early compliance with cleaner fuels for ships visiting the port and was put together with the input of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA) and several container lines.
For those joining the scheme, the port authorities will pay the cost difference between fuel oil bunkers and 0.2% marine gasoil (MGO) used in ship main engines.
The two principal conditions to comply is that ships must use MGO in auxiliary engines, as a buttress to California Air Resources Board (ARB) regulations, and ships must also comply with the ports' vessel speed reduction programme.
Tomley explained that ships could be compensated for MGO use out to 40 nautical miles (nm) from the ports, if they complied with the 12 knot speed programme out to 40 nm. Alternatively, if ships slowed from 12 nm, they could claim for MGO use from the 12 nm line.
Christopher Patton from the Los Angeles port authority thanked attendees at the meeting who had contributed to the scheme's development and went through the finer details as they were at the time.
Enrollment in the scheme would be necessary for shipowners, Patton said, and that enrollment could take place at any time starting next month.
Shipowners would supply vessel details, which would allow the port authorities to estimate the value of reimbursement likely to be available under the scheme. Detailed fuel records would need to be available for each vessel to allow auditing, including bunker receipts.
"We will not inspect every single set of records," Patton explained and said that it had yet to be determined how many ships would be audited.
The scheme will run until ARB fuel regulations for main engines enter into force in June next year, or other federal limits were enacted, Patton also noted. In the absence of such rules, it could be extended by the two port authorities.
Officials from the ports estimated today that the scheme would cost Long Beach port $9.9 million and Los Angeles port $8.6 million, based on 100% compliance out to 40 nm.
"We think it's a good model," Patton concluded and expected that industry participation would be high.