The Regulatory Gap¶

One State Protects Its Port Communities. Forty-Nine Do Not.¶

Key Finding

California's At-Berth Regulation, in effect since 2014 and strengthened in 2020, is the only mandatory at-berth emissions control requirement in the world. In October 2023, the EPA authorized other states to adopt California's standard under the Clean Air Act. No state has done so.

California's At-Berth Regulation¶

The California Air Resources Board's Control Measure for Ocean-Going Vessels At Berth requires vessels to either connect to shore power or use a CARB-approved emission control system while docked at California ports. The regulation covers container ships, roll-on/roll-off auto carriers, and (as of January 2025) tankers.

Key provisions:

Container ships and RoRo vessels must reduce at-berth auxiliary engine power by 80% at regulated ports
Tanker vessels at the Ports of LA and Long Beach must comply as of January 2025; all California ports by 2027
Full implementation across all vessel classes and ports reaches completion at the start of 2027
Compliance pathways include shore power connection or use of a CARB-Approved Emission Control System (CAECS)

CARB-approved barge-mounted capture systems are commercially operational at California ports. STAX Engineering is the current operator of CARB-certified capture barges across all three regulated vessel classes (container ships, auto carriers, and tankers), following an August 2025 CARB Executive Order for tanker service. Performance is independently verified at 99% PM2.5 and 95% NOx removal by Yorke Engineering LLC under CARB and South Coast AQMD oversight.¹

EPA Authorization for State Adoption¶

In October 2023, the EPA granted authorization for California's at-berth regulation under Section 209 of the Clean Air Act. This authorization is legally significant: it means any other state can now adopt California's identical standard without seeking separate EPA approval.

No State Has Acted

Despite EPA authorization, no state has initiated a rulemaking process to adopt CARB's at-berth standard. This includes states with major port communities facing significant health burdens: New York, New Jersey, Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, and Washington.

The Shore Power Problem¶

Shore power — plugging vessels into the electrical grid while docked — is often presented as the alternative to emissions capture. But shore power deployment faces significant barriers:

Global shore power infrastructure is limited — only a small fraction of global ports (approximately 3%) have shore power capacity²
Grid constraints limit utilization even where infrastructure exists: in Southampton, UK, only one of two high-voltage systems can operate at a time due to local grid capacity limits³
A July 2025 DNV report found that as little as 20% of the EU's required shore power infrastructure has been installed or commissioned⁴
Retrofit costs average approximately $2 million per vessel for shore power compatibility
Tankers cannot use shore power due to safety risks from volatile cargo — emissions capture is the only compliance pathway for liquid bulk vessels

Barge-mounted emissions capture operates without drawing from the grid, requires no vessel modifications, and works on all vessel classes including tankers. It complements shore power where grid capacity exists and substitutes where it does not.

State-by-State Pathway Analysis¶

Detailed state analyses for priority port states are under development. Each analysis will cover:

Home rule authority and state preemption landscape
Existing air quality regulations applicable to port operations
Legislative and executive pathways to adopting CARB-equivalent standards
Political feasibility and identified coalition partners
Estimated health benefits of at-berth controls at state ports

For state-specific regulatory pathway analyses, see our Services page.

Priority States¶

State	Major Ports	PHW Priority⁵	Status
New York	NY/NJ (shared)	Priority 1	No action
New Jersey	NY/NJ (shared)	Priority 1	No action
Texas	Houston, Galveston	Priority 2	No action
Louisiana	New Orleans	Priority 2	No action
Washington	Seattle, Tacoma	Priority 2	No action
Georgia	Savannah	Screening stage	No action
Florida	Port Everglades, Jacksonville	Screening stage	No action
Minnesota	Duluth-Superior⁶	Screening stage	No action

Why This Matters¶

The regulatory gap creates a health equity divide. Communities in Long Beach and Oakland have mandated protection from at-berth emissions. Communities in Newark, Houston, and New Orleans do not — despite facing comparable or worse emissions exposure and having fewer resources to cope with the health consequences.

Closing this gap requires either state-by-state regulatory adoption, federal action, or financial incentives (such as carbon credit revenue) sufficient to fund voluntary deployment at non-regulated ports.

Research Engagement

For state-specific regulatory pathway analysis or health impact assessment for your port community, contact research@porthealthwatch.org or see our Services page.

STAX Engineering press releases, July 2025 (Port of Los Angeles on-call provider designation) and August 2025 (CARB Executive Order for tanker service). Verification by Yorke Engineering LLC under CARB and South Coast AQMD oversight, March–April 2025. ↩
Global shore power availability estimated at approximately 3% of ports based on DNV and industry surveys of shore power infrastructure deployment. ↩
Associated British Ports / Port of Southampton shore power operational documentation; grid capacity limits operation to one of two high-voltage systems concurrently. ↩
DNV, "Shore Power Infrastructure Progress Report — EU AFIR Compliance Assessment," July 2025. ↩
Priority ranking is Port Health Watch's own classification based on ICCT Port Emissions Screening data (September 2024), combining at-berth emissions volume with surrounding population vulnerability. The ranking is not an ICCT publication. ↩
Duluth-Superior handles primarily Great Lakes bulk carriers (lakers) rather than ocean-going vessels. CARB's at-berth regulation applies to ocean-going vessels only; at-berth controls for Great Lakes bulk carriers would require a separate regulatory framework. See our MERC Coal Terminal analysis for the port-specific emissions context. ↩