San Pedro Bay Clean Marine Fuels Study Prioritises LNG and Methanol

Summary

The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have identified LNG and methanol as the most viable alternative marine fuels for near- and medium-term adoption. Their assessment recommends phased bunkering development, using existing infrastructure where possible, and will inform a proposed call for demonstration projects before the end of 2026.

Assessment maps demand and infrastructure needs

The San Pedro Bay clean marine fuels assessment sets out how Los Angeles and Long Beach could support alternative-fuel use by oceangoing vessels, linking infrastructure development to shipping demand.

Prepared through the ports’ joint Green Shipping Corridor efforts, the study examines likely fuel choices, potential local consumption and the facilities needed to supply ships.

It identifies liquefied natural gas and methanol as the leading near- and medium-term options. However, their environmental benefits depend on production methods and sourcing. The findings do not imply that every LNG or methanol supply offers equivalent emissions reductions.

The assessment also recognises that shipping companies are investing across several fuel technologies. That diversity creates a planning challenge for ports seeking to support fleet changes without committing too early to infrastructure that may be underused.

Demand projections show a broad range

By 2030, annual demand at the two ports could reach 65,000–115,000 tonnes of LNG and 64,000–250,000 tonnes of methanol, depending on market conditions and vessel deployment.

These are projected consumption ranges rather than contracted purchases. Fuel prices, regulatory requirements and shipping-line commitments will influence how quickly demand develops.

The particularly wide methanol range illustrates the uncertainty facing suppliers. Infrastructure investment needs to accommodate potential growth while remaining commercially viable if uptake follows a slower trajectory.

For bunker providers, the next step is therefore to connect demand forecasts with identifiable customers, vessel schedules and supply arrangements. A technically feasible fuel pathway becomes a business opportunity only when sufficient demand can support dependable deliveries.

Phased development favours existing assets

For methanol, the study finds that much of the storage and distribution infrastructure needed for initial bunkering already exists or could be adapted.

It recommends supporting early use through incentives, pilot projects and clear safety and permitting requirements. For LNG, the preferred approach centres on existing ship-to-ship bunkering methods rather than major new port storage facilities.

The recommendations favour incremental development. Adapting infrastructure and demonstrating operations can provide practical experience before larger commitments are made.

This approach also places coordination with regulators alongside commercial planning. Fuel availability alone is insufficient: suppliers and ship operators need approved procedures, suitable equipment and personnel prepared to manage the operation safely.

Demonstration proposals expected before year-end

The findings will inform a joint request for proposals anticipated before the end of 2026, seeking demonstrations of alternative-fuel bunkering in San Pedro Bay.

The ports also intend to use the assessment in discussions with shipping companies, fuel suppliers, terminal operators and government agencies.

For prospective participants, the opportunity is to demonstrate an operating supply chain, including delivery arrangements and customer participation. Successful projects could provide evidence on costs, handling requirements and operational reliability.

The proposed procurement remains a forthcoming step. Publication of the assessment does not itself establish a new commercial bunkering service or award a supply contract.

Singapore corridor provides an international foundation

The work builds on existing cooperation with Singapore.

On 20 April 2026, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore and the two Californian ports renewed their Green and Digital Shipping Corridor agreement.

The renewed framework covers fuel supply and infrastructure, pilot and demonstration projects, port-to-port data connectivity, cybersecurity and common standards.

At that stage, Singapore had completed methanol bunkering trials and awarded three methanol bunkering supply licences, while Los Angeles and Long Beach were preparing for a methanol pilot.

Such cooperation matters because shipping services need compatible arrangements across trading routes. Developing supply at one port is more useful when operators can plan fuel access and procedures elsewhere in their networks.

Commercial commitments will shape implementation

The assessment gives suppliers and shipowners a clearer basis for discussing investment. Its central commercial message is that infrastructure should develop alongside actual fuel demand.

For San Pedro Bay, the immediate priorities are demonstrating bunkering capability, establishing workable procedures and attracting customer commitments. The pace of implementation will depend on whether fuel supply, vessel deployment and commercial terms can progress together.

FAQs

Which fuels does the assessment prioritise?

LNG and methanol for near- and medium-term adoption.

What demand is projected for 2030?

Annual demand could reach 65,000–115,000 tonnes of LNG and 64,000–250,000 tonnes of methanol.

Does the study recommend major new LNG storage?

It favours existing ship-to-ship bunkering methods rather than major new port storage facilities.

What is the next planned step?

A joint request for proposals for alternative-fuel bunkering demonstrations is anticipated before the end of 2026.

Are LNG and methanol automatically low-carbon fuels?

Their overall emissions performance depends on how they are produced and sourced.