FMC Chair DiBella: Rethink IMO Net-Zero Fuel Rules

FMC Leader Pushes Back on IMO Fuel Restrictions

Laura DiBella, Chairman of the U.S. Federal Maritime Commission, has published an opinion piece urging the International Maritime Organization to revisit key elements of its Net-Zero Framework (NZF) before it moves toward international adoption. According to an op-ed published by Maritime Executive, DiBella contends that the current draft of the framework, which targets net-zero shipping emissions by 2050, creates more uncertainty than clarity for the industry and needs significant revision, particularly around which alternative fuels qualify for compliance.

The Core Objection: Regulation Over Market Forces

DiBella’s central argument is that the NZF attempts to push the industry away from petroleum-based fuels through regulatory mandate rather than allowing market forces to guide the transition naturally. She points out that today’s fuel supply chain is resilient precisely because it draws on a wide network of suppliers, refineries, and distribution channels. In her view, narrowing the list of acceptable alternative fuels under the NZF would undermine that same kind of resilience, potentially raising costs for shippers and, ultimately, consumers.

She stresses that fuel diversity on paper does not guarantee actual availability, reliability, or price stability. Rather than locking in a fixed implementation timeline or a restricted set of approved fuels, DiBella argues that emissions targets should be tied to fuels that have demonstrated real-world viability and can be scaled affordably and globally.

The Case for LNG and Bio-LNG

A major thrust of the op-ed is a call to formally include LNG and bio-LNG among the fuels recognized under the framework. DiBella cites projections suggesting these two fuel types together could realistically supply more than 60 percent of global maritime fuel demand by 2050. Bio-LNG, produced from organic agricultural waste, is presented as especially attractive because it can be transported and bunkered using infrastructure already built for conventional LNG, avoiding the cost of standing up an entirely new fuel ecosystem for a fleet of LNG-capable vessels that is already growing.

DiBella also addresses concerns that rising demand for biofuels will inevitably push bio-LNG prices higher. She argues this assumes fuel supply stays fixed while demand climbs, which she says misreads how energy markets actually function. Instead, she suggests that a well-structured global fuel standard could generate the long-term demand certainty needed to attract investment and expand supply, especially given the United States’ position as the leading global LNG exporter, with export capacity expected to double by 2030. She calls for U.S.-produced bio-LNG to be recognized as a qualifying fuel both domestically and under any international standard.

What It Means for Owners and Managers

For ship owners, managers, and charterers already navigating a patchwork of decarbonization rules, this intervention from a senior U.S. regulator signals that the final shape of the NZF’s fuel-eligibility criteria remains genuinely unsettled at the political level, not just a technical detail to be finalized later. Fleets that have invested in LNG dual-fuel newbuilds or are weighing LNG bunkering contracts will want to watch closely whether bio-LNG ultimately secures formal recognition, since that outcome could materially affect the long-term compliance value of existing LNG assets.

More broadly, the debate underscores a recurring theme in maritime regulation: rules drafted around fuels or technologies that are not yet proven at scale can leave operators exposed to compliance and cost risk if the underlying assumptions about supply and pricing don’t hold up. This is precisely the kind of uncertainty that makes rigorous condition and bunker documentation increasingly important. As fuel specifications diversify and blending or co-processing practices become more common, independent bunker quantity and quality surveys will play a growing role in verifying what is actually being delivered and burned, giving owners a documented basis for demonstrating compliance regardless of how the NZF’s final fuel list is drawn.

Whether the IMO revises its approach along the lines DiBella proposes remains to be seen, but the op-ed adds a prominent U.S. regulatory voice to the broader industry conversation about balancing ambitious emissions targets with practical fuel availability.

Reviewed by Ibrahim Halil Ceylan, Marine Surveyor at Apeks Marine.