Long Beach and LA Pick LNG and Methanol as Near-Term Fuels

The ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles have settled on two fuels: liquefied natural gas and methanol. A joint Clean Marine Fuel Feasibility Assessment, released under the ports' Green Shipping Corridor programme, names them the most viable clean marine fuels for oceangoing vessels in the near and medium term.

The numbers behind that verdict are substantial. Roughly 4,000 vessels call at San Pedro Bay each year, and oceangoing ships are the largest single source of emissions in the complex. They sit at the centre of the ports' Clean Air Action Plan targets.

How much fuel are we talking about?

By 2030, the study projects annual demand at the two ports of roughly 65,000 to 115,000 metric tonnes of LNG. Methanol demand could reach 64,000 to 250,000 tonnes per year, depending on market conditions and vessel deployment.

For context, that methanol upper bound is a nearly fourfold spread from the low case — a signal that the ports expect adoption to hinge heavily on how carriers actually deploy dual-fuel tonnage, not on infrastructure alone.

The infrastructure picture is uneven. Much of the storage and distribution capacity needed for early methanol fuelling already exists or can be adapted, which cuts the initial investment requirement. LNG is the reverse: the assessment recommends leaning on existing ship-to-ship bunkering rather than building major new storage facilities.

What does this change for carriers and fuel suppliers?

The study found shipping lines are investing in a range of fuel technologies rather than converging on one successor to conventional marine fuel. Fuel costs, carrier commitments and regulatory requirements will set the pace of adoption — in that order of practical importance.

The ports' recommended approach is phased:

• incentives for early methanol use
• pilot fuelling projects
• use of existing storage facilities
• collaboration with regulators on safety and permitting

That last item matters more than it looks. Bunkering permits for methanol and LNG remain a gating issue in most US port complexes, and San Pedro Bay's willingness to work through them jointly is part of the pitch.

The commercial implication is straightforward. Carriers committing to methanol dual-fuel tonnage — currently the fastest-growing orderbook segment — gain a credible bunkering destination on the US West Coast. Fuel suppliers get early demand visibility in tonnes, not aspirations. Forwarders and shippers, meanwhile, can expect the fuel transition to show up in carrier surcharges before it shows up in local air quality reports.

An RFP before year-end

The findings will feed a joint Request for Proposal anticipated by the end of the year, seeking proposals to demonstrate alternative fuel bunkering capabilities in San Pedro Bay. The results will also guide planning with shipping lines, fuel suppliers, terminal operators and government agencies.

Watch that RFP. It's the first concrete test of whether the study's demand ranges translate into contracted bunkering capacity — and whether the US's busiest port complex moves at carrier speed or committee speed.