The past few months have been a period of analysing the implications of different sets of regulations for emissions reduction in the maritime industry. Shipping has already started navigating through the regulatory landscape of the European Union’s FuelEU Maritime regulations. It is designed to promote the consistent use of renewable and low-carbon fuels in the maritime sector using a financial penalty system. The regulations came into force on January 1 this year as part of the Fit for 55 package, which aims to reduce CO2 emissions within the bloc’s maritime sector by 55% before 2030, compared to 1990 levels. It complements the introduction of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) in 2024. The FuelEU Maritime regulations apply to all ships over 5,000 gt calling at EU ports. Penalties are incurred if a vessel’s fuel mix exceeds the allowed GHG intensity. Hence, the regulation heavily incentivises the use of low- and zero-emission fuels, such as biofuels, methanol, and LNG. However, regulations are never simple. In most cases, it is always a tangled web tied by a Gordian Knot. So, the powers that be from two different organisations believed that having two separate sets of regulations which have the same goal in mind would be best. Making them overlap was just the cherry on the cake. In April this year, the IMO announced additional regulations following the 83rd edition of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting. The MEPC 83 framework is not only for the EU but for global shipping, advocating not only for alternative low-emission fuels but also for improving energy efficiency and route optimisation so that global sustainability objectives can be met. The proposal states that ships must reduce their fuel intensity by a base target of 4% in 2028 against 2008 levels. This increases over time to 30% by 2035. The text also defines a direct compliance target of 17% for 2028 and grows to 43% by 2035. Even though the IMO regulations will not come into effect until 2027, the two sets of maritime decarbonisation regulations are set to overlap at some point unless a solution to use only one is agreed to. The two are very different in their approach, but both have the same goal in mind – to decrease emissions from shipping. Even the pricing is different. IMO’s Tier 1 is priced at $100 per tonne of CO2 equivalent, and Tier 2 is priced at $380 per tonne. FuelEU applies a flat penalty of €2,400 ($2,790) per tonne of VLSFO-equivalent gap, regardless of greenhouse gas intensity performance. Interestingly, right now, none of this is an issue. But, in a few short years, there might come a time when shipowners pay double for the same CO2 ‘puff’. Assuming the IMO Net-Zero Framework enters force in 2027 and controls the GHG intensity of international shipping from 2028, and FuelEU remains in force, all ships of 5,000 gt or more calling at EU ports will be regulated twice, to comply with both sets of regulations. Nick Brown, CEO of Lloyd’s Register, hopes it will not come to that and that FuelEU and similar regulations will be cancelled if the IMO’s Net Zero Framework is sufficient to please all sides. “We’ve had representatives from the EU say that they would wait and see what the IMO comes up with, and if it came up with an ambitious scheme, then they would look to effectively align their scheme with the IMO. And I do think it would be very, very unfair if people have to pay for the same carbon molecule twice,” Brown told Splash in an inte