O seminário Transição Energética no Mar, realizado no Rio de Janeiro no final de Abril, marcou um grande avanço nos planos para descarbonizar o setor marítimo do Brasil. Os organizadores, liderados pelo Almirante de Esquadra Ilques Barbosa Júnior, apresentaram uma proposta para o Plano Nacional de Transição Energética Brasileiro (BMNAP). Espera-se que o plano oriente os investimentos em tecnologia de propulsão de navios, combustíveis marítimos alternativos e infraestruturas portuárias, assim como atraia apoio político na implementação de um roteiro para a descarbonização marítima. 

A proposta está em análise e será discutida em audiência pública no Senado Federal no dia 22 de agosto. O BMNAP finalizado será apresentado ao Comitê de Proteção do Meio Ambiente Marinho da Organização Marítima Internacional (IMO), que se reunirá no final de setembro de 2024. Esta ação ajudará a solidificar o compromisso do Brasil no cenário internacional. 

Antes do seminário, o Conselho Internacional de Transporte Limpo (ICCT) publicou um documento destacando o valor de um Plano de Ação Nacional no Brasil para orientar investimentos e fomentar políticas que apoiem uma indústria marítima limpa. A publicação destacou a importância da adoção de combustíveis renováveis e da melhoria da eficiência energética da frota existente, ambos refletidos na proposta do BMNAP. O artigo também destacou o potencial de colaborações intersetoriais, incluindo aquelas com portos. 

No seminário, o secretário-geral da IMO, Arsenio Antonio Dominguez Velasco, fez referência aosinsights do estudo do ICCT sobre as emissões de gases de efeito estufa do ciclo de vida do hidrogênio no Brasil durante seu discurso de abertura. Este e outros artigos do ICCT lançaram luz sobre a necessidade de aplicar uma metodologia robusta de avaliação do ciclo de vida ao avaliar a sustentabilidade de combustíveis marítimos alternativos. Este tipo de pesquisa ajudará a fornecer uma compreensão abrangente do potencial dos biocombustíveis, porque leva em conta as emissões associadas às mudanças indiretas do uso do solo (ILUC). 

O secretário-geral da IMO, Arsenio Antonio Dominguez Velasco, fez o discurso principal e destacou a Figura 4 de um estudo publicado pelo ICCT em 2023. Foto Francielle Carvalho.

O ICCT tem conduzido diversas análises técnico-econômicas ao nível das rotas para testar a viabilidade da adoção de diferentes tecnologias de combustível e propulsão nos navios, o que pode ajudar os líderes do setor a priorizar o investimento. Na verdade, os participantes do seminário destacaram o desafio de dar prioridade ao investimento devido às incertezas que rodeiam a tecnologia dos combustíveis e a viabilidade econômica. 

Apresenta-se aqui um breve estudo de caso do graneleiro Cape Jasmine, que transporta minério de ferro. Optou-se por analisar uma extensa e importante rota marítima que vai do Porto de Açu no Brasil (AÇU) até Qingdao na China (QDG), com demandas energéticas substanciais. Ao analisar dados de movimentos de navios de 2023 do Sistema de Identificação Automática (AIS), projetamos uma hipotética viagem futura desta embarcação, que tem capacidade de carga substancial (comprimento total: 292 m; largura: 45 m; pontal: 24,8 m; calado: 18,32 m). O modelo de Avaliação Sistemática de Emissões de Embarcações (SAVE) foi utilizado para estimar as demandas de energia da rota, o que resultou em aproximadamente 15 GWh para a viagem de ida e volta, de cerca de 20.000 milhas náuticas. Isso equivale ao consumo anual de energia elétrica residencial de 19.230 habitantes do sudeste do Brasil em 2020. 

Aproveitando a metodologia que utilizamos anteriormente, a análise mostra que a utilização de hidrogênio líquido como combustível exigiria duas paradas adicionais para reabastecimento para completar a viagem (só ida). Em contraste, a amônia e o metanol poderiam alimentar a viagem de ida sem quaisquer paragens adicionais (Tabela 1). Para explorar o custo dos combustíveis alternativos, a análise baseou-se em um estudo anterior do ICCT, que comparou quantitativamente o custo dos combustíveis marítimos por várias vias. Para esclarecimento, apenas foi comparado o custo do combustível para vias que utilizam eletricidade renovável e capturam dióxido de carbono como matéria-prima. Até 2030, o custo do fornecimento de combustíveis marítimos alternativos para transportar minério de ferro entre AÇU e QDG seria semelhante para o hidrogênio renovável, a amônia renovável e o metanol renovável e, para todos, seria mais de três vezes mais elevado do que a contrapartida dos combustíveis fósseis numa base de energia equivalente. 

Tabela 1. Volume estimado e custo do combustível necessário pelo graneleiro Cabo Jasmine ao longo do corredor AÇU – QDG para uma hipotética viagem só de ida, caso sejam utilizados combustíveis marítimos alternativos 

Observação: todos os custos estão em dólares americanos de 2021. 

Com o hidrogênio líquido, existem limitações práticas em relação ao armazenamento que exigiriam modificações no navio antes que ele pudesse ser usado como combustível principal. Além disso, embora o metanol e a amônia tenham potencial para abastecer viagens de longo curso sem a necessidade de paradas de reabastecimento mais frequentes, a sua toxicidade inerente e a necessidade de modificações significativas nos navios apresentam desafios. Tal como demonstrado no estudo de caso acima, o custo também é um desafio para todos os três tipos de combustíveis alternativos limpos. 

Um aspecto fundamental para viabilizar uma transição para a energia limpa é a sinergia em toda a indústria marítima. Isso significa colaboração entre proprietários de carga, operadores de navios, portos, fornecedores de combustível, construtores navais e outros. Com o BMNAP em fase de conclusão, o Brasil está preparado para demonstrar não apenas liderança nessa colaboração, mas também o seu compromisso com as metas internacionais de descarbonização. 

The Energy Transition in the Sea seminar held in Rio de Janeiro in late April marked a major step forward in plans to decarbonize Brazil’s maritime sector. The organizers, led by Ilques Barbosa Junior, an Admiral of the Fleet, presented a proposal for the Brazilian Maritime National Action Plan (BMNAP). The plan is expected to guide investments in ship propulsion technology, alternative marine fuels, and port infrastructure, and it also calls for supporting policy frameworks to implement a roadmap for maritime decarbonization.

The proposal is being reviewed and is set to be discussed during a public audience in the Federal Senate on August 22. When the BMNAP is finalized and presented to the International Maritime Organization (IMO)’s Marine Environment Protection Committee, which convenes in late September 2024, it will help solidify Brazil’s commitment on the international stage.

Before the seminar, the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) published a paper highlighting the value of a National Action Plan in Brazil to guide investments and foster policies that support a clean maritime industry. It highlighted the importance of adopting renewable fuels and improving the fuel efficiency of the existing fleet, and both are well reflected in the BMNAP proposal. Our paper also highlighted the potential of cross-industry collaborations, including those with ports.

At the seminar, IMO General Secretary Arsenio Antonio Dominguez Velasco referenced insights from an ICCT study about the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of hydrogen in Brazil during his keynote speech. This and other papers by the ICCT have illuminated the need to apply robust life-cycle assessment methodology when assessing the sustainability of alternative marine fuels. Doing so helps provide a comprehensive understanding of the potential of biofuels because it takes account of the associated indirect land-use change (ILUC) emissions.

The ICCT has been conducting various route-level techno-economic analyses to test the feasibility of adopting different fuel and propulsion technologies on ships. These can help industry leaders prioritize investment. Indeed, seminar participants highlighted the challenge of prioritizing investment due to the uncertainties surrounding fuel technology and economic viability.

Here we’ll present a brief case study of the Cape Jasmine, a bulk carrier transporting iron ore. We chose to analyze a long, vital shipping route from Porto de Açu, Brazil (AÇU) to Qingdao, China (QDG) with substantial energy demands. By analyzing satellite ship movement data from 2023, we constructed a hypothetical future voyage of this vessel, which has substantial cargo capacity (length overall: 292 m; breadth: 45 m; depth: 24.8 m; draught: 18.32 m). The Systematic Assessment of Vessel Emissions (SAVE) model was used to estimate the energy demands of the route, and that came out to approximately 15 GWh for the round trip of about 20,000 nm. That’s equivalent to the annual residential electricity power consumption of 19,230 inhabitants in southeastern Brazil in 2020.

Leveraging a methodology we’ve used before, the analysis shows that using liquid hydrogen as fuel would require two additional refueling stops to complete the voyage (one way). In contrast, ammonia and methanol could power the one-way voyage without any additional stops (Table 1). To explore the cost of the alternative fuels, we relied on a previous ICCT study that quantitatively compared the cost of marine fuels made through various pathways. To be clear, we only compared the cost of fuel for pathways that use renewable electricity and captured carbon dioxide as feedstock. By 2030, the cost of supplying alternative marine fuels to ship iron ore between AÇU and QDG would be similar for renewable hydrogen, renewable ammonia, and renewable methanol, and for all it would be more than three times higher than the fossil fuel counterpart on an energy-equivalent basis.

Table. Estimated volume and cost of fuel required by Cape Jasmine along the AÇU–QDG corridor for a hypothetical one-way voyage if using alternative marine fuels

Note: All costs are in 2021 U.S. dollars.

A key aspect of unlocking a transition to clean energy is synergy across the maritime industry. That means collaboration among cargo owners, ship operators, ports, fuel providers, shipbuilders, and others. With BMNAP nearing completion, Brazil is poised to demonstrate not only leadership in such collaboration but also its commitment to international decarbonization goals.

El seminario Transición Energética en el Mar celebrado en Río de Janeiro a finales de Abril marcó un avance importante en los planes para descarbonizar el sector marítimo de Brasil. Los organizadores, encabezados por Ilques Barbosa Junior, Almirante de Escuadra, presentaron una propuesta para el Plan Nacional Marítimo de Transición Energética de Brasil (BMNAP). Se espera que el plan oriente las inversiones en tecnología de propulsión de buques, combustibles marinos alternativos e infraestructura portuaria, y también exige marcos de políticas de apoyo para implementar una hoja de ruta para la descarbonización marítima.

La propuesta está bajo revisión y será discutida durante una audiencia pública en el Senado Federal el 22 de agosto. El BMNAP finalizado será presentado al Comité de Protección del Medio Marino de la Organización Marítima Internacional (OMI), que se reunirá a finales de septiembre de 2024, y ayudará a solidificar el compromiso de Brasil en el escenario internacional.

Antes del seminario, el Consejo Internacional de Transporte Limpio (ICCT) publicó un documento destacando el valor de un Plan de Acción Nacional en Brasil para orientar inversiones y fomentar políticas que apoyen una industria marítima limpia. Destacó la importancia de adoptar combustibles renovables y mejorar la eficiencia de combustible de la flota existente, y ambos aspectos están bien reflejados en la propuesta del BMNAP. Nuestro documento también destacó el potencial de las colaboraciones entre industrias, incluidas aquellas con puertos.

En el seminario, el Secretario General de la OMI, Arsenio Antonio Domínguez Velasco, hizo referencia a los resultados del estudio del ICCT sobre el ciclo de vida de las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero del hidrógeno en Brasil durante su discurso de apertura. Este y otros artículos del ICCT han iluminado la necesidad de aplicar una metodología sólida del análisis del ciclo de vida al evaluar la sostenibilidad de los combustibles marinos alternativos. De esta manera, se puede proporcionar una comprensión integral del potencial de los biocombustibles porque se tienen en cuenta las emisiones asociadas al cambio indirecto del uso de la tierra (ILUC).

El Secretario General de la OMI, Arsenio Antonio Domínguez Velasco, pronunció el discurso de apertura y destacó la Figura 4 de un estudio publicado por el ICCT en 2023.  Foto de Francielle Carvalho

El ICCT ha estado realizando varios análisis tecnoeconómicos a nivel de ruta para probar la viabilidad de adoptar diferentes tecnologías de combustible y propulsión en los barcos. Estos estudios pueden ayudar a los líderes de la industria a priorizar la inversión. De hecho, los participantes del seminario destacaron el desafío de priorizar la inversión debido a las incertidumbres que rodean la tecnología de los combustibles y la viabilidad económica.

Aquí presentamos un breve estudio de caso del Cape Jasmine, un granelero que transporta mineral de hierro. Elegimos analizar una ruta marítima larga y vital desde el Puerto de Açu en Brasil (AÇU) hasta Qingdao en China (QDG) con demandas energéticas significativas. Al analizar los datos de 2023 del sistema de identificación automática (AIS), construimos un hipotético viaje futuro de este barco, que tiene una capacidad de carga sustancial (eslora total: 292 m; manga: 45 m; puntal: 24,8 m; calado: 18,32 m). Se utilizó el modelo de Evaluación Sistemática de Emisiones de Buques (SAVE) para estimar las demandas de energía de la ruta, que resultó en aproximadamente 15 GWh para el viaje de ida y vuelta de aproximadamente 20.000 millas náuticas. Esto equivale al consumo anual de energía eléctrica residencial de 19.230 habitantes en el sureste de Brasil en 2020.

Aprovechando una metodología que hemos utilizado anteriormente, el análisis muestra que el uso de hidrógeno líquido como combustible requeriría dos paradas adicionales para reabastecer de combustible para completar el viaje (solo de ida). Por el contrario, el amoníaco y el metanol podrían abastecer el viaje de ida sin paradas adicionales (Tabla 1). Para explorar el costo de los combustibles alternativos, nos basamos en un estudio anterior del ICCT que comparó cuantitativamente el costo de los combustibles marinos por varias vías. Para ser claros, solo comparamos el costo del combustible para las vías que utilizan electricidad renovable y capturan dióxido de carbono como materia prima. Para 2030, el costo de suministrar combustibles marinos alternativos para transportar mineral de hierro entre AÇU y QDG sería similar para el hidrógeno renovable, el amoníaco y el metanol renovables, y en total sería más de tres veces mayor que el costo de los combustibles fósiles en términos de energía equivalente.

Tabla 1. Volumen estimado y costo de combustible requerido por Cape Jasmine a lo largo del corredor AÇU-QDG para un viaje hipotético de ida si se utilizan combustibles marinos alternativos

Nota: Todos los costos están en dólares estadounidenses de 2021.

Con el hidrógeno líquido, existen limitaciones prácticas en torno al almacenamiento que requerirían modificaciones en el barco antes de que pueda usarse como combustible principal. Además, aunque el metanol y el amoníaco tienen el potencial de alimentar viajes de larga distancia sin la necesidad de paradas más frecuentes para repostar combustible, su toxicidad inherente y la necesidad de modificaciones significativas en los barcos presentan desafíos. Como se muestra en el estudio de caso anterior, el costo también es un desafío para los tres tipos de combustibles alternativos renovables.

Un aspecto clave para desbloquear una transición hacia la energía limpia es la sinergia en toda la industria marítima. Eso significa colaboración entre propietarios de carga, operadores de buques, puertos, proveedores de combustible, constructores navales y otros. Con el BMNAP a punto de finalizar, Brasil está preparado para demostrar no sólo liderazgo en dicha colaboración sino también su compromiso con los objetivos internacionales de descarbonización.

The growth of online shopping was accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, and e-commerce revenue approximately doubled in the United States in the past 5 years. In the neighborhoods where new warehouses have been built to meet this increase in demand, the trend has brought noticeable changes, including emissions from large tractor-trailers that bring containers from nearby ports and vans that collect packages for home delivery. These vehicles emit harmful pollutants including fine particulate matter and a group of gases called nitrogen oxides (NO_x).

While the warehouses don’t emit pollution like a power plant, their operations mean that truck traffic and tailpipe emissions concentrate around them. Researchers have detected increases in air pollution in communities where new warehouses have opened.

We at the ICCT partnered with researchers from The George Washington University on a new nationwide study in Nature Communications that helps quantify how much warehouses worsen local air pollution in the United States. The study focuses on nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), which is associated with new asthma cases in children, respiratory symptoms such as coughing and difficulty breathing, and other adverse health impacts. NO₂ emissions also lead to the formation of fine particulate matter and ozone in the air, which increase the risk of dying prematurely from heart and lung diseases, cancers, and other conditions.

Our study analyzed NO₂ satellite data along with a database of nearly 150,000 warehouses in the contiguous United States. The figure below illustrates the pattern in annual average NO₂ pollution around a warehouse, averaged across all locations. It shows that there is a spike in annual NO₂ of nearly 20% associated with warehouses. The highest NO₂ concentration is around 4 km away from the warehouse in the direction of the wind. Additionally, larger numbers of loading docks or parking spaces were associated with more truck traffic and higher levels of NO₂.

Figure. Annual average NO₂ concentration in 2021 from TROPOMI satellite data averaged over all warehouses in the contiguous United States. Source: Kerr et al. (2024).

Like others, our study also found that census tracts with greater numbers of warehouses tended to have higher shares of residents of color. This aligns with results from previous studies which showed that racial and ethnic inequities in NO₂ exposure are largely attributable to diesel truck traffic. Clearly, warehouse-related truck emissions are important to understand when taking action to address air pollution exposure disparities.

Addressing the issue requires action at multiple levels. At the federal level, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently finalized standards that will reduce emissions from new trucks starting in model year 2027. Under these, new engines sold by manufacturers must meet NO_x emission limits more than 80% below current levels. Additionally, the Phase 3 greenhouse gas rule, finalized in 2024, will encourage the deployment of more efficient technologies like hybrids and zero-emission vehicles, further reducing NO_x emissions from trucks.

At the state level, California’s Advanced Clean Trucks and Advanced Clean Fleets rules require manufacturers to transition to 100% zero-emission sales for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles by 2036. The Advanced Clean Fleets rule also includes a zero-emission drayage registration requirement that will accelerate the adoption of cleaner vehicles at ports and warehouses. Both EPA’s greenhouse gas rule and the California Advanced Clean Fleets rule face legal challenges, but these rules need to stay in place to support the transition to cleaner vehicles and reduce air pollution near warehouses.

Regulations can also directly target warehouse-related pollution. The South Coast Air Quality Management District in California implemented an indirect source rule that requires large warehouses to reduce pollution, and credit is awarded for actions like transitioning to zero-emission and near-zero-emission trucks and installing charging infrastructure. New York City recently announced plans to implement a similar policy.

Lastly, addressing this issue requires action from both the private sector and regulated electric utilities. Amazon, the largest player in the e-commerce space, has committed to deploying 100,000 electric delivery vans by 2030. While a significant step, commitments to end diesel drayage contracting by 2030 and work toward implementing zero-emission service contracts with logistics operators and warehouse owners, and installing charging infrastructure at warehouses, would further demonstrate industry leadership. Prologis, the largest owner of warehouses in the United States, pledged to install 900 MW of charging capacity at its facilities. Simultaneously, electric utilities proactively planning grid upgrades and streamlining permitting for necessary charging infrastructure can help ensure the success of these initiatives.

Emissions from trucks have declined substantially in recent years thanks to regulations requiring more advanced emission control technology. With a nearly 50% increase in freight tonnage moved by trucks projected over the next 30 years, the new rules from EPA and California are key to continuing to make progress. The private sector, electric utilities, and other local rules also have important roles. The status quo is simply not enough. A commitment to delivering clean air requires action to address warehouse-related truck emissions.

This blog was original published on HindustanTimes.

As India develops standards for swappable electric bus batteries to ensure interoperability and ease of battery change, parallelly addressing range anxiety, there continues to be focus on creating common swapping stations for all electric buses. This will improve overall efficiency while reducing infrastructure constraints.

As of early July 2024, 8,583 electric buses were registered across India. That number is set to increase fairly dramatically soon as by 2030, the Indian government intends to replace 800,000 diesel buses with electric buses.

In an effort to boost the adoption of electric buses, the Central Government is planning to implement uniform battery standards for electric buses.

NITI Aayog’s draft Battery Swapping Policy primarily targets the electric two- and three-wheeler segments. However, introducing uniform battery standards for electric buses is expected to enhance interoperability and promote battery swapping within the electric bus sector.

While national schemes such as FAME, National Electric Bus Program, and PM e-Bus Sewa have supported State Transportation Undertakings (STUs) in increasing the number of electric buses in their fleets, electric bus adoption in the private sector is limited. Only a few established private operators with sufficient financial capacity are making noticeable progress.

Currently, there are central government subsidies for STUs to procure electric buses through gross cost contracts (GCC) that cover bus supply, operation, maintenance, charging infrastructure, and driver costs. But for the private sector, which constitutes 94% of the 2.39 million buses registered across India, if not through such subsidy, could battery swapping with certain financial incentives be a catalyst for faster adoption of electric buses?

The International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), supported by NITI Aayog, explored battery swapping for electric two-wheelers in India by analysing factors affecting total cost of ownership (TCO). That work provides a strategic framework from which to also explore adopting battery swapping in the private bus market.

Current context

All electric buses in India rely on plug-in charging. To attain a full charge, these typically take 20-40 minutes using DC fast charging or 6-8 hours using lower-powered slow charging. To support the 8 lakh buses by 2030, an overall investment of ₹1.5 trillion ($18 billion) is estimated be required, and this includes the power and upstream infrastructure across cities and on intercity routes. The estimate also includes large spaces for charging stations at every 100 km on each side of highways. The process of land acquisition India is often lengthy and costly, and installing fast charging brings challenges related to not only space and costs, but also power availability and continuous supply on isolated interstate routes in rural areas.

Benefits of battery swapping

Separating batteries from buses would enable battery swapping operators (BSOs) to own the batteries instead of the bus owner. This converts the battery into a variable cost and reduces the upfront capital cost of the bus dramatically, as batteries constitute 40%–50% of this cost. Battery swapping is about as fast as refueling a combustion engine vehicle and typically takes 1-3 minutes. Sun Mobility’s battery swapping station in Ahmedabad required only 33% of the energy and 60% less area than depot-based charging. The strategic deployment of battery swapping stations could help reduce range anxiety, and the short turnaround time of battery swapping instead of opportunity charging may benefit bus operators by lowering overall travel time and thus making the service more desirable to passengers.

The emergence of a battery-swapping industry in India

The industry has advanced towards battery swapping for electric two- and three-wheelers because of the Ministry of Power’s Battery Swapping Stations policy. Delhi led with purchase incentives for swappable EVs, and last-mile service aggregators are improving efficiency with low-cost, swappable vehicles.

In the Union Budget 2022–23, finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced plans for a national battery swapping policy with interoperability standards. NITI Aayog is working to standardize the policy across all vehicle segments, and the Heavy industry ministry is set to implement norms for electric buses

Purchase-subsidy based scheme and usage-linked incentives

The ICCT’s battery swapping report included a strategy framework for early policy that highlighted the potential of purchase subsidy and usage-linked incentives for electric two-wheelers. The framework may be considered for its potential to accelerate adoption of private electric buses. Under a purchase-subsidy based scheme, electric buses sold without pre-fitted batteries could qualify for certain financial incentives under national or state-level programs. The incentives could be given to manufacturers, which can then choose to pass them on to registered BSOs that meet safety standards.

Additionally, the usage-linked leasing scheme may allow bus operators to lease swap-capable buses rather than buying them outright. This allows operators to pay fees based on distance or usage, and Macquarie recently launched Vertelo in India, a $1.5 billion platform providing leasing, financing, charging infrastructure, fleet management, and end-of-life vehicle solutions for electric buses.

Battery swapping to potentially enhance electric bus operations

If a network of battery-swapping stations were developed across urban and peri-urban areas, private operators could procure battery-swappable buses and collaborate with a BSO as needed to ensure operational efficiency and reduce time and cost.

The expansion of the highway network, the unavailability of railway tickets, and high airfare also make intercity buses a convenient option, especially for passengers from Tier and Tier 4 cities. It was observed that ticketing for electric buses on Delhi Agra and Delhi Chandigarh routes surged by 150% in 2022. With rising diesel prices and improved electric bus technology, new electric buses can now travel 250–300 km per charge, covering 40% of India’s intercity trips. With less space requirements, battery-swapping stations can be strategically placed along highways and if interoperability is achieved, private operators could subscribe to highway-based battery swapping services from suitable BSOs.

In the case of BasiGo in Kenya and in Shenzhen, China, buses were procured without pre-fitted batteries. Shenzhen Bus Group (SZBG) in China did not ultimately opt for battery swapping due to a lack of battery standardization, safety concerns, and the absence of subsidies for BSOs. But for more than 2 million buses across India with over 26,000 private operators, interoperability through standardization of batteries and creating an ecosystem of battery swapping might hold the key for some. Prioritizing policies for battery standardization and interoperability through a consensus-driven approach would help build a solid foundation for scalable and efficient integration of electric buses into India’s transport systems.

This blog was originally published in ETAuto.

The Government of India is emphasizing the need to decarbonize road transport, and low-emission zones (LEZs), geographically defined areas where the operation of highly polluting motorized vehicles is restricted, can accelerate this transition toward cleaner mobility. LEZs also have the potential to improve quality of life for urban residents because of the health benefits they bring.

LEZs are becoming an increasingly adopted intervention to curb urban air pollution and traffic congestion, especially among European cities where more than 320 such zones exist. In addition to regulating the movement of polluting vehicles, LEZs also help spur mode shift from private vehicles to public transit and more active mobility alternatives like walking and cycling. As cities in India consider such interventions to address the issues of pollution and traffic congestion, and to meet decarbonization goals, how would upgrading transport infrastructure bring a range of benefits, including support for LEZs?

Enabling regulation of highly polluting vehicles

To identify vehicles that are contributing to most emissions, city authorities need vehicle-specific information like the fuels they run on, their years of manufacture, and the emission standards to which they are certified, for every vehicle plying in the city. While vehicle-specific information is available through the VAHAN database, the challenge lies in ascertaining polluting vehicles that are plying in the city and their travel patterns.

Vehicle registration data available with the Regional Transport Offices (RTO) that cover a given city is seldom considered a proxy to determine the motor vehicles plying in that city. However, the vehicles plying within a city could have been registered anywhere in the country, and the registration data from RTOs is not likely to be a complete representation of vehicles operating in that city. In 2016, for example, it was estimated that over 5 lakh personal passenger vehicles enter Delhi every day, which was more than the total number of vehicles getting registered in the capital in a year. An equal number could be traveling out of the city as well, deeming the registration data inept for determining polluting vehicles.

Installing closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras, preferably those with the ability to read license plates, at strategic locations across the city is an ideal way to access real-time insights into vehicular movement. Using the vehicle registration numbers detected by this network of CCTVs, local authorities can determine the age, engine type, Bharat Stage emission standard, and other characteristics of each vehicle plying in the city to develop a vehicle emission inventory and identify vehicles that should be regulated by the LEZs.

While CCTVs are already extensively used in security surveillance and traffic and parking management, they are now being integrated with artificial intelligence and machine learning capabilities for many things, including crowd management, threat detection, and improving road safety. Bigger cities like Delhi and Bengaluru already have over 2 lakh CCTVs installed for improving law and order. Such a robust network of cameras in a city augments the eyes-on-the-street concept and can be used to enforce future LEZs, all while remaining compliant with the rules governing this equipment in India.

Encouraging alternative modes of travel

Alternatives to private vehicles include public transport modes like metro, light rail, and bus, para transit modes like feeder buses and auto-rickshaws, and non -motorized modes like cycle-rickshaws, cycling, and walking.

Public transport is especially crucial in metropolitan areas, where about half of all motorized trips are made via buses or metros. It’s also effective in moving more people and consumes less fuel per passenger kilometers travelled than private vehicles. Cycling and walking are the cleanest modes of travel, and the cheapest and healthiest. Across 27 cities in India, research found that the number of people cycling and walking ranges from 48% to 55%, depending on population size (large cities of more than 10 million people are on the lower end of the range).

It’s estimated that India operates only one-fifth of the buses it currently needs. With a few exceptions (Chennai, Mumbai, and Hyderabad), most cities with any form of rapid transit system (metro, bus-rapid transit, or light rail) operate at less than 20% of their estimated ridership. Most Indian cities lack adequate and safe infrastructure for non-motorised transport.

Efforts are being made at both national and subnational levels to improve the availability of and access to non-personal modes of travel. The PM e-Bus Sewa program aims to add 10,000 new electric buses in 169 cities. The operational network of metros in cities is expected to double in the next few years. While there is a clear need to increase availability, the barriers to using public transport, which include safety, accessibility, reliability, and comfort must also be addressed. This can not only encourage a mode shift from personal to public transportation, but also increase the acceptability of LEZs.

LEZs are not an isolated solution to a city’s deteriorating air quality but contribute towards the overall enrichment of the urban ecosystem. Studies show LEZs have helped reduce nitrogen dioxide emissions from road traffic by up to 46%. By integrating technological solutions and upgrading transport infrastructure, cities not only improve the efficiency of transport system but also add infrastructure that is a utility for other urban services. With the environmental and health benefits they bring, LEZs could be a valuable part of India’s vision for cleaner, healthier, and more liveable cities.

It’s been more than 2 years since I described here how I selected a battery electric car model to meet my personal needs: a retail price below €50,000, a type-approval electric range of more than 300 km, and a fast-charging capability of at least 150 kW. In a few weeks, I’ll return my vehicle to the dealer as it’s the end of the 3-year lease period.

So, how was it? In short, pretty uneventful. I never suffered from range anxiety. Most of the time my battery range was more than enough just relying on my Wallbox charger at home. And if I really needed some extra juice, there was always a public charger nearby. I’d describe my experience as one of range serenity instead of range anxiety.

My experience matches the conclusions of a recent ICCT study which found that a car with a battery on the smaller end of the range of capacities on the market is sufficient for the vast majority of urban and rural car drivers. I feel that driving an electric car nowadays is not substantially different from driving a conventional combustion engine car, except that the electric car is quieter, cleaner, and the exceptionally strong torque is more fun to drive!

What about the real-world energy consumption of my electric car? From previous analyses we know there’s roughly a 14% gap between official (Worldwide Harmonized Light Vehicles Test Procedure [WLTP]) values and real-world fuel consumption and CO₂ values for conventional gasoline and diesel cars. For plug-in hybrids, the difference is larger and these typically consume three to five times more fuel than advertised by official test values. In the European Union, all new combustion engine vehicles must report anonymized real-world consumption values via on-board fuel consumption meters and statistically meaningful results are accessible to the public. Battery electric vehicles are still exempt, though, and that unfortunately leaves us with a data and knowledge gap.

I kept track of my own real-world consumption values and Figure 1 summarizes my observations. For this chart, I also used data from Spritmonitor.de, a free public platform that’s well known and commonly used among vehicle owners, especially in Germany where I live. Based on a total 13,000 km of driving and a total of 2.4 MWh of electricity that I tracked as part of 50 re-charging events over more than 2 years, my average real-world electricity consumption was 18.7 kWh/100 km. The fluctuation throughout the year is interesting: During the summer months, my average consumption was as low as 14 kWh/100 km, and in December the average was nearly 26 kWh/100 km. It’s also important to note that my electric vehicle is equipped with a heat pump that uses electric energy more efficiently to heat the cabin and battery in winter.

Figure 1. Energy consumption values for my electric car over more than 2 years, from left to right: monthly average variation, official WLTP value, my own real-world consumption, average on-board computer value, and average reporting of Spritmonitor users.

Compared with other drivers on Spritmonitor who have the same vehicle model configuration (58 kWh battery, 125 kW electric engine), I am pretty much average. Leaving two extreme outliers aside, there are 18 other Spritmonitor users who reported average energy consumption values between 18.4 and 23.1 kWh/100 km, with an aggregated average of 19 kWh/100 km. 

Comparing my own real-world energy consumption with the official WLTP type-approval value (16.7 kWh/100 km), I am about 12% above. There isn’t much data from Europe to compare my findings with, but in a comprehensive study from China, my ICCT colleagues found a real-world energy consumption gap of around 10%–20% with WLTP for most passenger cars, and my 12% falls nicely into that range. And it’s re-assuring that the real-world gap for my electric car is a bit lower than the 14% we found for combustion engine cars in a recent study. 

What I find worrying, though, is what I consider to be a large gap between the average energy consumption value the on-board computer of my car shows (15.6 kWh/100 km) and the real-world value I observed. This difference is about 19%. Most likely, the most important contributing factor here are losses in the on-board charger of the vehicle that occur when re-charging at an A/C charger such as the 11 kW Wallbox I have at home. According to studies, these charging losses add about 17.5% on average to the real-world energy consumption of a battery electric vehicle. 

A closer look at my typical driving patterns helps understand my real-world energy consumption and how an electric vehicle works in practice. Figure 2 shows my most typical driving pattern, an inner-urban trip through the flat suburban surroundings of Berlin of about 20 minutes driving and 10 km one-way distance. I take this kind of trip about four times per week, back and forth, and that adds up to about 4,000 km per year. As shown in the figure, velocity jumps up and down—there are many stops, and my maximum speed was about 60 km/h. During these trips, the state of charge of the vehicle’s battery only drops by about 2 percentage points. 

Figure 2. My most typical driving pattern, an inner-urban trip. The blue line shows vehicle speed over time and the red line shows the state of charge of the vehicle’s battery.

Figure 3. A typical extra-urban trip (with a portion of urban driving) that I take about once per week. The blue line shows vehicle speed over time and the red line shows the state of charge of the vehicle’s battery.

For both trip types, the range of my vehicle is fully sufficient. Indeed, I typically deplete the battery by only about one-third per week and end up re-charging once every 2 or 3 weeks. Therefore, for most of the year, a vehicle with a smaller battery would satisfy my needs, and that’s fully in line with the findings of our recent ICCT report modeling different electric vehicle configurations and user types.

About twice per year I take a long-distance trip to Southern Germany. This ends up being 550 km of driving one way, most of that on the highway, and speeds get up to 170 km/h. Due to the high highway energy consumption of my vehicle, I do two re-charging stops of about 25 minutes each—barely enough to go to the toilet and eat a snack. At the end, I plug the car into an A/C Wallbox so it can slowly re-charge overnight.

Figure 4. A typical long-distance trip I take about twice per year. The blue line shows vehicle speed over time and the red line shows the state of charge of the vehicle’s battery.

All told, I drive about 10,000 km per year, and this is about 50% urban, 40% extra-urban, and 10% highway. Compared with the WLTP type-approval cycle, I perform less highway and more city driving, and that could explain why my real-world energy consumption is only 12% higher than the official value. According to Green NCAP, for example, my vehicle model has an average energy consumption of 30.2 kWh/100 km for highway driving; this results in an average energy consumption of 22.5 kWh/100 km or 35% higher than the type-approval value.

A large variability in the differences between real-world and type-approval energy consumption of electric cars was also reported in a recent test summary by the German car drivers association ADAC. The ADAC results show that it’s not only personal driving patterns that matter but also the effort a manufacturer puts into optimizing the vehicle toward real-world driving rather than the official test procedure. This, I find, is a good argument for future regulation of real-world energy consumption.

A recent report from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that most U.S. ports lack an air quality monitoring program, and even fewer have emission inventories. Although ports would benefit from both, and EPA has some helpful guidance on conducting emission inventories, these types of analyses require specialized skills and resources, including equipment and expertise.

This is where we come in. With technical assistance from the ICCT, ports can identify high-emitting equipment and estimate the benefits of electrification. Let’s walk through how we work using a recent example.

The ICCT partnered with the Port of Coeymans, a small, privately owned marine terminal on the Hudson River near Albany, New York. Its fleet consists of nine diesel-powered tugs and more than 40 barges. The Port, which is under the umbrella of Carver Companies, has capacity for heavy haul transport of large components, modularization of power plants and bridges, marine construction, disaster recovery projects, and has recently pivoted toward supporting offshore wind projects. Carver Companies is equipped to build and repair ships on-site, including electric tugboats. We estimated the emission reductions and health benefits of converting to an all-battery-electric tug fleet.

The port sent us the specifications of the nine tugs and officials estimated that they burned roughly 120,000 gallons of 500 ppm sulfur marine diesel fuel annually. Using our global online Port Emissions Inventory Tool (goPEIT), we estimated the annual carbon dioxide (CO₂) and air pollutant emissions from tug operations. We then used InMAP to estimate the reduction in local air pollution and the health benefits associated with the switch to battery electric tugs. Lastly, we calculated the monetized health benefits of the switch using EPA’s value of a statistical life.

Our estimates show that the nine tugs at the Port of Coeymans emitted around 1,200 MT of CO₂, 20 MT of nitrogen oxides (NO_x), 380 kg of sulfur oxides (SO_x), and 320 kg of fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) annually. If all nine tugs were battery electric, these emissions would be eliminated and annual average local PM_2.5 air pollution concentrations in and around the port would be reduced by up to 0.043 µg/m³ (Figure 1). This would be a 1.1% reduction in PM_2.5, based on the real-world PM_2.5 background concentrations reported here. The 30-day average when we completed the analysis in March/April 2024 was 3.8 µg/m³. 

The reduction in PM_2.5 would result in monetized health benefits of approximately $278,000 per year based on the 2022 mean U.S. value of a statistical life. One air-pollution-related premature death in the surrounding community would be avoided every 41 years; this might not sound like much, but this is the impact of one single action at a small port in a town with a population of approximately 7,250. Monetized health benefits of avoided morbidity (non-fatal health effects) are not quantified by InMAP, but global estimates of the economic impacts of air pollution suggest that morbidity cost is roughly 10% of mortality cost. Thus, in this case, including avoided morbidity in our estimate could increase the monetized health benefits to more than $300,000 annually.

The Port of Coeymans included our analysis in applications for federal funding, and similar analyses can be done for other ports, including those with larger fleets, more equipment types, and higher nearby population density. Ports around the country are increasingly interested in electrification as it can reduce pollution, improve public health, and help decarbonize the U.S. freight transportation system. But of course, this requires investment. Fortunately, recent legislation, including the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) of 2021 and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022, have made available more than $5 billion to support efforts to reduce pollution at U.S. ports.

EPA’s Clean Ports Program (CPP) was funded through the IRA and made $3 billion available, $750 million of which was for ports in areas that do not meet the EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This was a one-time funding opportunity and applications closed in late May, but ports can still apply for funding through the U.S. Maritime Administration’s Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP). The PIDP is a discretionary grant program aimed at improving the movement of goods at ports and implementing emissions-mitigation measures. It was awarded $2.25 billion from 2022 to 2026 through the BIL and a quarter of this is designated for projects at small ports.

A larger network of ports in the United States with air quality monitoring programs would make it easier to identify key areas where federal funding can most effectively be distributed. Strategic installation of port electrification technology can improve the air quality for near-port communities, many of which are lower-income and have historically been affected by poor air quality from port activity.

An upcoming ICCT report will estimate the CO₂, NO_x, SO_x, and PM emissions from at-berth vessels at 191 ports across the United States. As far as we’re aware, it’s the first high-level national port emissions inventory of its kind. Using novel criteria, we identified seven ports with high at-berth vessel emissions near a large population that could benefit significantly from installing shore power or other vessel-side electrification technologies.

Our work is ongoing. No matter how big or small the port or the surrounding population, more ports should consider implementing an air quality monitoring program and conducting an emissions inventory. We encourage port officials who are interested in learning more about collaborating with the ICCT on an analysis like the one with the Port of Coeymans to contact us through our website.

Earlier this year, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) postponed a hearing and vote to finalize revisions to its Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) until the Friday after the 2024 U.S. elections in November. The vote had been expected in March and it’s a good sign that CARB is taking more time. This delay is another opportunity to adjust the regulation so it can do more to achieve California’s climate goals.

The LCFS revisions were riven from the outset by temporally competing priorities. A quick, simple update that raises ambitions and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets would be relatively straightforward. It would also lift the LCFS’s sagging credit market, which has fallen from pre-pandemic heights of $200 per tonne of carbon dioxide (CO₂) to less than $75 per tonne in early 2024. Addressing several other issues that have cropped up over the last 5 years, including the program’s growing reliance on virgin vegetable oils and credits from avoided methane emissions at large dairy farms, would take much more time. The risk with spending that time is that it could prolong the slump in credit prices and thus erode the program’s near-term value to credit-generators such as electric vehicle charging stations and alternative fuel producers.

Under any circumstances, balancing these priorities would be a challenging. But now that there’s more time, let’s focus on the two largest issues—the risk that the LCFS is shuffling around or diverting resources and that it’s crediting GHG reductions from unrelated agriculture-sector projects. There are available policy levers to tackle both.

The resource-diversion issue is about the impact on vegetable oil markets. The LCFS’s historic success at driving the use of waste oil-derived renewable diesel is likely already bumping up against resource constraints for domestic waste oils because it’s bringing more virgin soy oil and more used cooking oil (UCO) from Asia into the state. An expanding reliance on virgin soy oil for LCFS compliance will probably shuffle existing soy oil mandated by the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) from other states to California. Look at the data—there’s an uptick in idled biodiesel capacity in the last 3 years, as conventional biodiesel consumed nationwide is giving way to renewable diesel production intended for the West Coast that can exceed FAME biodiesel blending constraints and be used for LCFS compliance. If new, higher targets are implemented, the LCFS could increase total demand for soy beyond federal mandates and lead to unintended market distortions and indirect land-use change emissions.

We’re beginning to see this in recent months, as the LCFS overshot the RFS mandate and caused the value of RFS RINs to plummet. This prompted some producers to reconsider their renewable diesel plans until a clear policy signal emerges.

Solution: An energy- or volume-based cap on the quantity of lipids (fats and oils) credited in the LCFS would reduce the program’s impact on biofuels linked to deforestation and minimize the risk of imported waste oil fraud.

The crediting issue is about avoided methane emissions. The LCFS credits farms for avoided methane emissions from improved manure management if they build digesters to capture the manure methane and send it to the gas grid. This doesn’t address additionality (i.e., whether those digesters were built solely because of the LCFS) or deliverability (whether the natural gas is being delivered to California and consumed in the transport sector). The types of large, concentrated farms that have benefitted most from this all-carrot, no-stick approach have also been criticized for their contribution to local air pollution. Ultimately, the concern is that the current design of the LCFS conflates its transport-sector goals with a nationwide carbon-offset system for farms.

Solution: Phase out avoided methane crediting for new pathway applications to the LCFS and implement deliverability requirements to demonstrate that new projects are producing fuel for the transport market.

CARB’s scoping workshops for the LCFS amendments identified several possible structural changes and singled out issues that had been highlighted by the ICCT and other organizations. But in the December 2023 proposed approach, there was no cap on the riskiest biofuels. Instead, there was language referring to sustainability certifications for biofuel producers; in the European Union, such certifications have been shown to have little impact on the indirect, market-mediated pressure that biofuel demand places on land use. Also under the December 2023 proposal, the avoided methane credits would only be phased in for new projects starting in 2030, while existing projects and those built prior to 2030 would be guaranteed an avoided methane credit for 30 years. Similarly, deliverability constraints—which could help limit the inflow of credits from farms as far away as Indiana and New York—would only be implemented starting in 2030 for renewable natural gas. As proposed, the deliverability requirements kick in starting in 2045 for hydrogen made from renewable natural gas, despite it being fossil-derived gray hydrogen paired with a tradeable credit for upstream biomethane production.

Data that has emerged over the last few months suggests the bigger, structural changes to the LCFS are imperative. Fourth quarter 2023 data from the LCFS, released after the proposal came out, showed that the use of lipid-based renewable diesel in California continued to accelerate and rose by over 40% compared with fourth quarter 2022. Analysis from UC Davis estimated that if the December 2023 amendments go through as proposed, they aren’t likely to stabilize credit markets and would instead expand California’s reliance on cheap, vegetable oil-based renewable diesel. Dan Sperling, a former CARB board member and one of the thought leaders who contributed to the design of California’s LCFS, warned in March that the proposed amendments risk exacerbating deforestation and “inaction risks sending one of California’s key climate policies off course.”

Recent data suggests that renewable diesel production is poised to continue growing beyond CARB’s expectations. Figure 1 illustrates the trajectory of reported lipid renewable diesel consumption in California through 2023 (in gray) and the Energy Information Administration’s projection of renewable diesel conversion capacity (the dotted line) through 2025; both contrast with CARB’s projections of projected renewable diesel consumption through 2035 (blue and orange lines). As you can see, CARB’s modeling suggests that, even with a big change in LCFS target levels and a new-auto-acceleration mechanism to ramp up compliance, California’s lipid demand for renewable diesel will essentially stabilize starting next year. But the rapid pace of renewable diesel conversion capacity suggests there’s plenty of flexibility to process greater volumes of lipids into renewable diesel in response to policy changes. It’s more likely that a higher target would exacerbate current trends and potentially push lipid consumption up by another billion gallons and approach a 100% renewable diesel blend. A lipids cap set at present-day levels is more likely to align the program with CARB’s expectations of consumption around 2 billion gallons annually.

Figure 1. Comparison of renewable diesel capacity, actual consumption, and CARB projections of future consumption, 2020-2035. Source: EIA and California Air Resources Board Dashboard and April ISOR Supplemental Documentation

So yes, the delay in the LCFS process is a great opportunity. CARB’s decision has implications that go beyond the State of California: Moving ahead without any additional safeguards may influence other states with fuels policies to do the same and could even create more pressure on the Environmental Protection Agency to increase the federal mandate. Rather than narrowly focusing on higher target levels, CARB can strike a balance that includes measures that address the quality of credits generated. Using this extra time to add guardrails such as a cap on lipids and greater restrictions on the crediting and deliverability of biomethane can achieve CARB’s goals of raising LCFS credit values and boosting the market by limiting the contribution of the cheapest, riskiest sources of credits.

Along its 7,500 km of coastline, India has 12 ports designated as major ports (owned by the national government) and 217 non-major ports (owned by the respective state governments). Nearly 70% of air the pollution at major ports is from ships at berth or at anchor. The average time spent by ships while berthing at major Indian ports was 2.25 days in FY 2021–22, more than twice the average globally, 1.05 days in 2021.

The maritime sector is crucial for India. It carries 95% of the country’s trade volume and 65% of its trade value. Because of this, and as projections suggest a fivefold increase in seaborne tonnage by 2047, ports have been earmarked to play one of the leading roles in India’s decarbonization efforts.

Last spring, the Ministry of Ports, Shipping, and Waterways (MoPSW) released the “Harit Sagar” Green Port Guidelines, which detail a range of decarbonization initiatives at major ports. Among the land-based initiatives are electrification of port vehicles and cargo-handling machinery and phased adoption of alternative fuels by trucks that transport cargo. To reduce sea-based emissions, Harit Sagar (which is green ocean in Hindi) endorsed the use of shore power and cleaner alternative fuels to operate port crafts.

While the Harit Sagar initiatives are not legally binding, ports can earn carbon credits for use in a proposed carbon credit trading scheme. The environmental performance of the major ports will be evaluated by the MoPSW annually based on set near-term—30% by 2030—and long-term—70% by 2047—targets for reducing carbon intensity in terms of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions per ton of cargo. These targets were established with FY 2022–23 as the baseline year, and major ports were tasked with preparing the requisite greenhouse gas emissions inventory in conjunction with an expert agency.

The adoption of cleaner alternatives for port vehicles, port crafts, and trucks is still at a nascent stage, but progress has been made in shore-to-ship power supply. Harit Sagar envisions the rollout of shore power in three phases:

• Phase 1, by 2023, port crafts (tugs, pilot boats, and survey and mooring boats)
• Phase 2,  by 2024, Coast Guard/Navy and India-flagged coastal vessels
• Phase 3, by 2025, export/import foreign-flagged cargo vessels

By the end of April 2024, all major ports in India had developed adequate infrastructure for shore power supply to port crafts (Figure 1). Additionally, some ports—Mormugao, New Mangalore, Chennai, and Paradip—also had the infrastructure to supply to Indian Navy/Coast Guard vessels. Note that ships are not yet mandated to use the available grid power. This contrasts with the European Union, where certain types like container ships and passenger ships (including cruise) will be mandated to do so by 2030 via the FuelEU directive. While ships at Indian ports are only likely to switch to shore power if it’s financially beneficial, the MoPSW has raised the possibly of introducing incentives in the future such as queue priority and rebates on berth dues for vessels that have shore power receptors installed.

Figure 1. Major ports in India with shore power facilities
Sources: MoPSW (2020), Rajya Sabha (2021), and MoPSW (2023)

Shore power technology not only helps to minimize the climate impact of port operations, it also brings public health benefits by reducing the use of bunker fuels. An ICCT study estimated the air quality and health benefits of shore power in two port cities in the United States using our global online Port Emissions Inventory Tool (goPEIT). For the Port of Seattle, shore power for ocean-going vessels and harbor craft was expected to reduce direct CO₂, nitrogen oxides (NO_x), and particulate matter (PM_2.5) emissions from those vessels by 68%, 85%, and 75%, respectively. (Remaining emissions were because ships still use fuel in the port while entering, departing, and manoeuvring.) Using shore power was estimated to reduce the average PM_2.5 concentrations near the port by up to 83%, which would result in an estimated $27 million in public health benefits annually.

For the Port of New York/New Jersey, connecting ocean-going vessels and harbor craft to shore power and electrifying drayage trucks was estimated to reduce direct CO₂, NO_x, and PM_2.5 emissions from those sources by 64%, 66%, and 68%, respectively. The average PM_2.5 concentration levels in the port’s vicinity would be expected to fall by up to 65%, and that would translate to an estimated $150 million in public health benefits per year. Given that the population density of major Indian port cities (e.g., Mumbai, 73,000/mi² and Kolkata, 63,000/mi²) is far greater than that of New York (26,931/mi²) and Seattle (9,357/mi²), the public health benefits associated with shore power deployment could be higher in India.

The extent of the life-cycle reduction in ship emissions that result from use of shore power in India will be primarily dependent on the composition of the electricity grid. As of FY 2023–24, nearly 76% of grid power is generated from fossil fuel sources (primarily coal, with gas and oil); the remainder comes from renewable sources (wind, solar, hydro, and biomass) and nuclear energy. At present, India’s grid emission factor for CO₂ stands at about 710 g/kWh, slightly higher than ship auxiliary engines operating on low-sulfur fuel oil (approximately 690 g CO₂/kWh). However, it’s projected that with increasing use of renewable sources for power generation, India’s grid emission factor could be reduced to 548 g CO₂/kWh by FY 2026–27 and 430 g CO₂/kWh by FY 2030–31. Thus, while the overall carbon intensity of shore power use will be higher than that of burning marine fuel in the short term, the anticipated drop in the grid emission factor will make using shore power an increasingly attractive emissions-reduction option by later in this decade.

Because all major ports are in the exploration phase of deploying shore power technology, conducting a formal emissions inventory using tools like the ICCT’s goPEIT can be useful in supporting detailed recommendations about how to prioritize installations. Such an inventory would also allow decision-makers to identify, quantify, and compare other sources of port-based emissions and help port operators devise a plan for reducing and eliminating emissions from these sources in line with the Harit Sagar targets.

The ICCT’s goPEIT is free to use. Researchers and port representatives can obtain a username and password by clicking on “Request an account.” Additionally, the ICCT can help ports to evaluate the costs and benefits of different alternative fuel technology options and design transition pathways in line with India’s economy-wide decarbonization targets. We encourage those interested in establishing baseline emissions inventories for Indian ports and analyzing the cost-effectiveness of alternative fuel options to get in touch with us.