This Q&A session explores the role of book and claim systems in maritime decarbonization, featuring Himanshu Sharma from Vurdhaan, a platform providing independent registries for Scope 3 emission reductions. Himanshu explains how virtual crediting works, why transparency and verification are key, and how book and claim differs from compliance pooling under FuelEU Maritime.

When does the use of shore power become cost-effective for shipowners under new EU and IMO regulations? Using the Shore Power Quickscan, this article breaks down key cost components such as fuel, electricity, EU ETS, FuelEU Maritime, and the upcoming IMO Net-Zero framework and compares cost impact of different routes on a 2,500 TEU containership. Results show that while shore power can already deliver savings from 2025 onwards (!), its competitiveness strengthens sharply after 2030 as compliance costs rise.

Shipowners and operators face the challenge of navigating multiple regulatory frameworks - EU ETS, FuelEU Maritime, and IMO Net-Zero - each employing distinct methodologies and emission factors for assessing fuel emissions. This blog provides clear guidance on the differing emission factors and calculation methods employed by each regulatory framework.

Accurate assessment of marine fuel costs is becoming increasingly critical as regulatory pressure grows, especially given the recently announced IMO Net-Zero Framework. This blog uses a VLSFO-equivalent cost model to evaluate the impact of FuelEU Maritime, EU ETS, and IMO Net-Zero regulations on a wide range of fuels. By comparing fossil, bio-based, and synthetic fuels under realistic scenarios, the analysis shows that compliance costs - driven by emissions penalties and carbon pricing - are expected to exceed fuel prices by 2030 for many options.

This Q&A session explores the upcoming IMO Net-Zero Framework, featuring Rajat Bishnoi and Yuvraj Thakur from Normec Verifavia, an accredited verifier supporting shipowners with emissions reporting and regulatory compliance. They explain the new GHG Fuel Intensity and Fuel Standard requirements, compare them to FuelEU Maritime, and discuss penalties, registry systems, and practical implications for shipowners preparing for 2027–2028 enforcement.

Operating an offshore workboat in the North Sea area until 2050 will impose significant financial and operational pressure due to tightening environmental regulations and mounting compliance obligations. Modelling of compliance costs shows a clear tipping point in 2040, with FuelEU Maritime becoming the dominant driver, although FuelEU currently applies to vessels above 5,000 GT only. Results for a large offshore workboat operating year-round in the North Sea show that the maximum projected cost exposure could reach up to $250 million between now and 2050.

This case study analyzes 10 marine fuels using an HFO-equivalent model to determine their full lifecycle costs, including fuel prices and regulatory compliance costs, from 2025 to 2050. The results highlight a critical tipping point in 2040, driven by the FuelEU Maritime regulation increasing carbon intensity reduction targets sharply from 14.5% to 31%. This blog provides shipowners with guidance on how to navigate these evolving cost scenarios and maintain competitiveness to ensure future-proof investments.

This case study determines the costs of compliance for a 3,000 TEU Panamax containership with respect to FuelEU and EU ETS. Estimated annual compliance costs for business as usual range from $2.5M in 2025 to $23M in 2050. Two different pathways are evaluated to determine mitigation options and OPEX costs: shore power and wind-assisted propulsion. Savings for shore power are approx. $400k per year in 2025, savings for wind-assisted propulsion are approx. $600k in 2025.

This case study calculates and compares EU ETS and FuelEU compliance costs for three major shipping companies: CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd and COSCO. From 2025 until 2050, these three companies will pay a total compliance cost of $54B (CMA CGM), $25B (Hapag-Lloyd) and $32B (COSCO).

This case study calculates and compares the compliance costs with regards to EU ETS and FuelEU for VLSFO, bio-methanol and e-ammonia. Results show that the averaged compliance costs for VLSFO between 2025 and 2050 are $966 per mT.

This case study determines the effects of pooling a fully electric small-sized chemical tanker with similar type vessels in the context of FuelEU Maritime. The results show that a single electric ship can include up to 69 ships in its pool in 2025, each ship consuming 2,555 mT MDO per year.

This is a case study that determines the impact of FuelEU Maritime on a shore power refit business case up to 2050, taking several ships and varying input parameters to determine the impact under multiple conditions. As FuelEU Maritime will make shore power mandatory in 2030 for passenger- and containerships, this tool will help to determine the impact of that regulation on your business case.

The FuelEU Maritime pooling mechanism is complex. The FuelEU Pool Tool makes it simple. Use this tool to compare cost impact of FuelEU, EU ETS and the fuel itself when pooling up to ten different ships. Blend different quantities of fuel, change fuel properties and compare the cost outlook until 2050 to make your very own FuelEU pooling strategy.

FuelEU is complex. The FuelEU Case Maker makes it simple. Use this tool to compare cost impact of FuelEU, EU ETS and the fuel itself for up to five different cases. Blend different quantities of fuel, change fuel properties and compare the cost outlook until 2050 to make your very own FuelEU strategy.

Watch this lunch and learn by EOPSA together with General Electric, in which we discuss the onshore and vessel aspects of shore power, including microgrids and using the Decarbonizer to determine the costs for shore power for your vessel.

Most ports have the ambition to become carbon neutral by 2050. This typically excludes vessel emissions and focusses on Scope 1/2 port operations only. A significant portion of ports around the world have signed shore power declarations to ‘deploy shore-side electricity by 2028 where possible’, including all large North Sea ports, Los Angeles, Montreal and all large Japanese ports. Cruise and container vessels are the primary target for most ports’ regulations and EU will start taxing vessels via EU ETS from next year onwards.

Four out of the five largest shipping companies have the ambition to be carbon neutral by 2050. Most shipping companies focus on alternative fuels for combustion. Preferred fuels that are currently considered are (bio)LNG and methanol.

Virtually all energy majors have 2050 as target date for carbon neutrality. Most focus solely on Scope I and II emissions. Ørsted and Equinor have the highest ambitions and most stringent targets. Repsol, Eni, Shell, TotalEnergies and BP are following suit.

In the next four years, you will be faced with a carbon tax of €200 - €300 carbon tax per mT fuel, mandatory use of shore power and low carbon fuels due to a these five regulations: FuelEU Maritime, EU ETS, AFID, RED, ETD.

Watch this lunch and learn with EOPSA Founding President Roland Teixeira de Mattos, who will tell all about EOPSA, its growth, its advocacy, its outlook and the broader topic of Port Energy.