PORT INFRASTRUCTURE
world, while new piloted technologies are being used in tugs, ferries, and pilot boats. Clean fuel supply is the next frontier of that leadership. No one is asking ports to become fuel producers. But fuel providers cannot build production, storage, and delivery infrastructure without a place to put it and a credible plan for how ships will use it. Ports and the maritime industry need to advocate for these investments together. This requires state leadership and planning. Identify land for produc- tion, storage sites, and distribution networks. Begin the environmental and safety analysis before a specific project is on the table. Early planning shortens timelines and signals serious- ness to investors. Bring together fuel suppliers, carriers, utilities, labor, and regulators. Carriers can share deploy- ment plans and fuel preferences, and suppliers can share what they need to commit capital. State and local policymakers need to hear from ports that maritime fuel planning is infrastructure planning. That means permitting certainty and support for planning studies like the one California’s legislature already endorsed. It also means a consistent message that maritime fuel projects are climate solutions, not climate problems. The maritime industry has done the hard part of taking the first step. It is now acting on that thinking with hun- dreds of new ships and billions of dol- lars in investment. These are no longer hypothetical needs. They are real, they exist today, and they are growing because the industry has committed to proven, technologically feasible path- ways to decarbonization. The ships are coming. The question for every port in the Pacific is whether they will fuel here. We invite our port partners to join us in sharing the 2050 goal, and in acting locally to build the infrastructure that makes it possible.
environmental first encouraged development of an LNG facility at the Port of Tacoma, in par- ticular to serve the domestic Alaska trade. They also encouraged proposed methanol production. Then they reversed course, ironically citing cli- mate concerns as the reason to aban- don projects that are critical to the industry’s pathway to decarbonization. California is already contending with refinery closures and an ongoing fuel crisis, yet there is still no consen- sus on the need to plan for a maritime energy supply. The legislature nearly unanimously approved a PMSA- sponsored bill to launch an alterna- tive fuels study and planning process. Governor Newsom vetoed it, prefer- ring to address the question in some future regulatory proceeding. community The question of how to best provide sustainable maritime fuel on the U.S. West Coast will ultimately come down to whether these states want to build the infrastructure necessary to procure it. Policymakers need to meet with fuel providers and talk through the nuts and bolts of what it will take to attract invest- ment. These conversations must be real, candid, and then result in planning and action. Given our vessel orderbook we know that there is demand certainty — what we don’t have is supply certainty from fuel providers. While decarbonization is a global effort, ports remain well-positioned to advocate for planning and then deliv- ering these important investments with their states and local communities. Pacific ports have also shown they can lead. Shore power, clean truck pro- grams, and clean air action plans were once considered ambitious. Today they are standard practice because ports chose to plan, invest, and con- vene. In California, the ports’ drayage truck fleets are the cleanest in North America and more vessels are plugged- in at berth than anywhere else in the
Mike Jacob, PMSA
either state, and ammonia supply is largely theoretical. Meanwhile, competing gateways — major hubs in Asia and Europe — are positioning themselves as multi-fuel service centers. The U.S. Gulf Coast is courting fuel producers and investors. Carriers deploying dual-fuel tonnage will plan rotations and refueling points accordingly. Fuel availability is fast becoming a factor in where vessels call, how strings are deployed, and which gateways can compete successfully for discretionary cargo. This leaves two outcomes for West Coast vessels: deploy dual-fuel tonnage where it can burn alternative fuels that can result in help- ing to meet their decarbonization goals or simply continue to burn diesel while on the U.S. West Coast when necessary. For port leaders, one can expect that this will ultimately devolve into a competitiveness question, not just an environmental question. A port that cannot offer the fuels its customers’ ships were built to burn will, over time, become a less attractive call. The emis- sions benefits of those ships will then need to be realized somewhere else. Mixed signals from state capitals Our West Coast state policies have not made this easier. In Washington, former Governor Inslee and the
36 — PACIFIC PORTS — October 2026
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator