The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have identified liquefied natural gas (LNG) and methanol as the most viable alternative marine fuels for the near and medium term in a joint Clean Marine Fuel Feasibility Assessment, setting out demand estimates through 2030 and infrastructure recommendations that could shape fuel choices and cost structures on the trans-Pacific lane.
What Happened
The assessment, part of the ports' Green Shipping Corridor initiatives, examined which alternative fuels shipping companies are most likely to adopt, how demand could develop through 2030, and what investments would be needed to support bunkering operations.
The study estimates that annual LNG demand at the San Pedro Bay ports could reach between 65,000 and 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.
About 4,000 vessels call at the two ports annually, and oceangoing ships are the largest source of emissions within the port complex. Rather than recommending large-scale infrastructure investment immediately, the assessment calls for a phased approach that uses existing facilities to support early adoption.
For methanol, much of the necessary storage and distribution infrastructure is already available or could be adapted for marine fueling, potentially reducing upfront costs. For LNG, the study recommends relying primarily on existing ship-to-ship bunkering rather than building major new storage facilities within the ports. The next step is a joint request for proposals, expected by the end of 2026, seeking projects to demonstrate alternative-fuel bunkering in San Pedro Bay.
Background
Shipping companies are increasingly investing in dual-fuel vessels capable of running on alternatives to conventional marine fuels, although the industry has yet to settle on a single long-term solution. The ports renewed their Green and Digital Shipping Corridor agreement with Singapore in April, while Singapore has already conducted methanol bunkering trials and licensed methanol suppliers.
The report also acknowledges that the environmental benefits of alternative marine fuels depend heavily on how they are produced and sourced, with overall climate impacts varying by feedstock, production method and supply chain. Fuel prices, regulatory requirements and commitments from shipping lines will ultimately determine how quickly demand develops.
Impact on Shippers
For shippers moving cargo from China to the US across the trans-Pacific, the fuel transition will not directly change freight rates in the short term, but the pace of alternative-fuel vessel deployment will affect capacity structure, and the way green fuel surcharges are set deserves attention. As the ports advance bunkering demonstrations, vessels calling at the US West Coast will have more fuel compliance options, which over time could reduce the risk of route adjustments driven by tighter emissions rules.
On customs and compliance, the assessment does not introduce new documentation requirements at the cargo level, so shippers need not adjust declaration processes for now. However, if the ports later issue safety and permitting rules for bunkering operations, terminal working schedules could be affected, and port notices should be monitored.
Recommendations
Shippers should keep track of green fuel policies and bunkering project tenders at US West Coast ports, specify in long-term contracts with carriers or forwarders how fuel surcharges are calculated and adjusted, and plan inventory around schedule reliability to avoid last-mile delays caused by changes in terminal operations.