RFA Pushes for Ethanol’s Role in Cleaner Marine Shipping

May 29, 2026

Print This Article Share it With Friends

by Mark Dorenkamp (Brownfield Ag News) The Renewable Fuels Association wants to ensure ethanol is part of any discussions about reducing global marine shipping emissions.

RFA vice president of government affairs Ed Hubbard says the International Maritime Association continues to develop a net-zero framework.

“We see sustainable maritime fuel as a tremendous opportunity for the U.S. ethanol industry.”

He tells Brownfield alternative fuels currently make up less than half of one percent of the marine shipping market, which is dominated by bunker fuel grades.

“We see an opportunity to increase that share of the market to about 5 percent, and if that happens you’re talking about a significant increase in demand for American-made biofuels.”

Hubbard says the U.S. ethanol industry has around two billion gallons of unused capacity that could immediately address the maritime shipping sector. READ MORE

Related articles

On marine fuels and RFS, Zeldin says he’s open to discussion (Agri-Pulse/Bracewell)
On Board With Maritime Policy (Ethanol Producer Magazine)

Excerpt from Agri-Pulse/Bracewell: Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin says he’s open to talks on pulling marine fuel more fully into the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The RFS does not recognize fuel used in ocean-going vessels like tankers and container ships, meaning the Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) generated from such biofuels have no value.

“If the law were changed to integrate maritime fuel into the RFS, fuel producers and blenders could generate and sell RINs to obligated parties, subsidizing the higher production cost of biofuels,” Bracewell’s Timothy Urban and Kimberly Pinter recently wrote, as quoted by Agri-Pulse.

“This would allow them to offer competitive pricing to maritime shippers, increasing demand and incentivizing low-carbon maritime fuel production,” said Urban and Pinter. READ MORE

Excerpt from Ethanol Producer Magazine: Strategies for ethanol to fuel ocean-going vessels are gaining steam as industry trade groups work to ensure supportive polices. Treading carefully with a reluctant Trump administration, biofuel groups hope to get the U.S. back on board with a global regulatory push for low-carbon maritime transport.

“I believe this is the single biggest opportunity the ethanol industry has,” says Zoltan Szabo. Based in Hungary, Szabo is secretary general of the Climate Ethanol Alliance—a global partnership representing trade groups and companies from the U.S., Europe, Brazil, Canada and Asia. “The maritime sector needs fuels that are low-cost, available and scalable, [and] that come with low carbon intensity. Ethanol ticks all the boxes, and that’s why we believe that we need to do all we can to make sure that the maritime opportunity becomes a reality.”

Top of the list is getting approval for a global standard supporting the use of alternative fuels. The International Maritime Organization’s Net-Zero Framework was close to being finalized when the U.S. lobbied to delay the decision. “It took everyone by surprise last October that the U.S. was not supportive, because they had been beforehand,” Szabo says.

...

The global fuel standard within the framework requires ships to gradually reduce GHG emissions, and it includes a pricing mechanism on emissions to encourage compliance. It was approved by the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee in April 2025. The draft legal text was shared with UN member states aiming for formal adoption in October 2025. After the U.S. and other oil-producing countries lobbied against it, the final vote was deferred until November of this year.

“There’s a lot of reasons why the Trump administration did not like that approach,” says Troy Bredenkamp, senior vice president, government and public affairs at the Renewable Fuels Association. “They saw the net-zero proposal as a global tax, through the fines that were going to be imposed by those not meeting the new, very stringent standard.”

“There were some specific elements of the framework that the administration was very concerned about,” concurs Chris Bliley, senior vice president of regulatory affairs at Growth Energy. “They’re not going to support anything that includes a penalizing mechanism. They’re very focused on reliable energy for all approaches. In their view, they don’t think there should be limits on specific fuel types.

“I think it’s important that the administration is going to continue to engage, but they’ve made their position clear. For us, it’s emphasizing that it’s important the U.S. remains engaged because of the market potential for American producers and ultimately American farmers.”

When the approval process for the IMO framework was paused last fall, RFA formed the American Biofuels Maritime Initiative with the American Biogas Council and others to help the administration understand the domestic biofuel sector’s position, Bredenkamp explains. “[They should] stay at the table and come up with some kind of global maritime fuel standard framework that they are able to support,” he says. This spring, Bredenkamp reported, the effort seemed to be moving in the right direction.

Superseding the EU
While the compliance cost of the proposed global standard is a sticking point, Bredenkamp says, “There is a cost to doing nothing, as well, specifically from regional standards.

“If there’s not a single global standard, the concern is [broader global acquiescence to the existing] EU standard, or [the creation of] an Asian standard, because the world continues to move towards cleaner fuel standards,” he adds. “You’re going to have a patchwork. So another point we’re trying to make with the Trump administration is that it would be far better to have a single standard.”

In the absence of a global standard, the EU’s standard would have an outsized influence, Szabo explains. “And in a bad way, because shipping is global. From the U.S. to Tokyo, the EU system wouldn’t be involved, but many routes include a stopover or final destination in Europe. Then, obviously, you would have to respect the EU regulatory framework, which … penalizes crop-based biofuels.”

Under the FuelEU Maritime regulations, shippers must purchase allowances for emissions that exceed EU benchmarks, which increase over time as the standards become more stringent. The regulations add significant costs, currently at about 15% more for gray methanol, 20% higher for LNG and more than 30% higher for bunker fuel oil. Crop-based biofuels are assessed the same penalties as petroleum-based bunker/marine fuel. Green methanol and ammonia, bio-LNG from certain feedstocks and biobased diesel from waste oils are assessed little or no penalty. A single, global emissions standard, such as the IMO Net-Zero Framework, would supersede the EU program and any other emerging regional policies, Szabo says.

“Without the support, without the buy-in of the U.S., a global regulatory framework will not be adopted,” Szabo says. “This is not to be seen as a climate deal. This is to be seen as a trade opportunity because the U.S. industry would benefit a lot. U.S. ethanol is one of the most cost-competitive renewable fuels on the market, if not the most cost-competitive. As such, once there is demand, it will be the first to supply. It will be a major outlet not only for ethanol, but also bio-LNG and biodiesel.”

Szabo doesn’t expect clarity on the issue until the November vote nears. “There is an intense negotiation happening on the floor at the IMO, and also behind the curtains,” Szabo says. As the only biofuels organization with consultative status, though not a vote, the Climate Ethanol Alliance can participate in the discussions and submit proposals. He adds they are willing to speak for not only ethanol, but other biofuels such as biodiesel or bio-LNG.

“Shipping is global and shippers want a single regulation, rules that are applicable all over the place,” Szabo says. “Shippers are investing with dual-fuel ships on the waters already using alcohols, and many more on the order books.”

Vale, a Brazilian mining company, is among the first companies to place orders for ethanol-powered ocean-going vessels. The company announced in April that it has commissioned multiple tri-fueled Guaibamax vessels, with the first to be delivered in 2029 by China shipbuilder Shandong Shipping Corp. The iron ore transports can be powered with ethanol, methanol and/or bunker fuel, with retrofit options for LNG and ammonia. In the news release, Vale reports investments of about $1.4 billion to reduce its Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions. The company has committed to reducing Scope 3 emissions by 15% by 2035, which relate to the value chain, including the majority of emissions from maritime transport. (Ethanol Producer Magazine covered other engine and shipper developments in a feature in the March issue titled “Ethanol’s Next Big Wave.”)

In its response to the news, the Climate Ethanol Alliance called Vale’s announcement “first-mover validation.” Ethanol has long been discussed as a marine fuel, but never deployed at this scale, plus the 25-year framework of the purchase agreement “shows this is not a pilot, but a strategic shift.”

Education, Research Ahead
Achieving the maritime opportunity goes beyond getting a global framework that doesn’t penalize crop-based biofuels. “This is pretty new to us as an industry and for government stakeholders and others,” Bliley says. “There’s a lot of education to be done and some research as well.” That work includes understanding the logistics. “We ship ethanol all over the world, but currently we are not used as bunker fuel. So are there things that need to be done?”

On the domestic policy front, legislation has been introduced to include maritime use in the Renewable Fuel Standard.

...

How quickly the maritime market for ethanol will grow is uncertain. Ocean-going vessels stay in service for decades, so turnover is slow, although retrofits are being developed. “When you’re talking about a market of 80 to 90 billion gallons annually, it doesn’t take very many ships to add up to a lot of gallons,” Bredenkamp says.

...

“I know how excited everyone was about sustainable aviation fuel a couple of years ago, and there’s reason for excitement there,” Bredenkamp says. “But I think there is more reason to be excited about the maritime opportunity. Ethanol is a drop-in fuel, the infrastructure is already there at a lot of the ports. We perform well from a carbon-intensity reduction perspective and, from an affordability perspective, we pair well with bunker fuel.”
The RFA examined maritime fuel prices at major world ports to see how a 50-50 ethanol/bunker blend might compare and, while more costly than conventional petroleum-based fuels, the 50-50 blend was less costly than other alternative fuels.

All the conversations over the maritime fuel opportunity are leading to other new opportunities, Bredenkamp adds. “The American Waterways coalition has come to us.” The trade association represents tugboat, towboat and barge operators who are looking for ways to clean up their fuel use. “We’re finding more opportunities that are coming forward. That’s another reason why we’re getting more and more excited.” READ MORE