FuelEU Maritime applies to vessels above 5,000 GT calling at EU or EEA ports, regardless of flag. The regulation (Regulation (EU) 2023/1805) has been in force since 1 January 2025 and covers both main propulsion energy and auxiliary energy on board. The geographical scope follows the EU ETS pattern: 100 % of energy on intra-EU voyages and 50 % on voyages between EU and third-country ports.
The responsible party is the shipping company as defined by the MRV Regulation. In practice this means: whoever holds the ISM Code for the vessel also bears the FuelEU obligations. When a DOC transfer or ownership change occurs within a reporting year, obligations must be allocated proportionally – a frequently overlooked point in vessel sales.
The regulation deliberately addresses the energy side, not just the emissions side. This distinguishes FuelEU fundamentally from the EU ETS: whilst the ETS requires emission allowances (i.e. financial compensation), FuelEU demands an actual reduction in the GHG intensity of the energy used. This means: burning only conventional fuel and buying allowances is ETS-compliant but not FuelEU-compliant.
The regulation progressively reduces the permissible GHG intensity of energy used on board. The reference value is the GHG intensity value of 2020, measured in gCO2eq/MJ (grams of CO2 equivalent per megajoule). The reduction targets are ambitious:
2025: -2 % relative to the 2020 baseline (91.16 gCO2eq/MJ)
2030: -6 %
2035: -14.5 %
2040: -31 %
2045: -62 %
2050: -80 %
The early years are deliberately moderate to allow for the transition. From 2030, requirements tighten significantly; from 2040, they will only be achievable with a substantial share of alternative or synthetic fuels.
GHG intensity is calculated on a well-to-wake basis, i.e. from fuel production to combustion on board. This is a material difference from the tank-to-wake approach of the EU ETS. LNG has a lower CO2 intensity than HFO on a tank-to-wake basis, but on a well-to-wake basis, methane slip can partially negate this advantage. The choice of methodology significantly affects the economics of alternative fuels.
Compliance flexibility: The regulation permits three flexibility instruments: banking (carry over-compliance from one year to the next), borrowing (compensate under-compliance in the following year, limited to 2 %) and pooling (aggregate compliance balances of multiple vessels). These instruments enable fleet optimisation but require careful planning.
In practice, FuelEU changes the interfaces between technical management, bunker procurement, chartering and reporting. The impacts permeate the entire organisation:
Bunker procurement: Purchasing must now consider not only price and availability but also the well-to-wake GHG intensity of the fuel. Biofuels and synthetic fuels have lower intensity values but are more expensive. Blending strategy becomes an optimisation tool.
Technical management: Superintendents must monitor onboard energy consumption more closely. Shore power (Onshore Power Supply, OPS) becomes mandatory from 2030 for certain vessel types in EU ports. Technical retrofitting for shore power connections is a technical management responsibility.
Chartering: FuelEU costs and risks must be addressed in charter parties. Who is responsible for FuelEU compliance, who bears the additional cost of alternative fuels and how data is exchanged between charterer and owner are questions that must be contractually settled.
Reporting: The FuelEU reporting obligation runs in parallel with MRV reporting but uses a different metric (GHG intensity rather than absolute emissions). This requires an extension of reporting systems and the verifier mandate.
A common mistake is delegating FuelEU to the sustainability department as a purely environmental metric. FuelEU is not a CSR measure – it is a commercial reality with direct financial consequences.
Penalty underestimation: Failure to meet GHG intensity targets results in a penalty based on the compliance gap. The amount is calculated as the difference between actual and permissible GHG intensity, multiplied by energy consumption and a fixed penalty factor. For a typical vessel, this can quickly reach six figures.
Pooling miscalculation: Pooling is not a free pass. Yes, a vessel with lower GHG intensity can compensate another. But the pool must be organised, documented and demonstrated to the verifier. Moreover, the compliance balances of pool participants become transparent – which can be sensitive in competitive situations.
Shore power ignorance: From 2030, container ships and passenger vessels must use shore power in major EU ports where available. Retrofitting a shore power connection requires electrical modifications and a class survey. Those planning this only in 2029 will underestimate yard capacity and lead times.
Well-to-wake misconception: Some operators believe LNG is the simple solution for FuelEU. The well-to-wake calculation shows, however, that LNG delivers only moderate GHG reduction – with some engines and methane slip rates, even no improvement over HFO. Fuel selection must be based on actual well-to-wake values, not marketing material.
Shipping companies preparing for FuelEU Maritime should model their fleet's compliance balance across several scenarios rather than reacting once the annual result is calculated. A vessel-by-vessel projection using the current bunker mix, trading pattern and the expected split between intra-EU and international voyages shows which ships will generate a surplus and which will fall short of the target. This exercise also reveals whether pooling several vessels under one compliance balance would reduce the overall penalty exposure, and whether the savings justify the administrative effort of setting up and documenting a pool.
Contracts with charterers and bunker suppliers need matching attention. Time charter parties should specify who carries the FuelEU risk, how compliance data is exchanged during the charter period, and what happens if a charterer's voyage instructions push the vessel into a higher GHG intensity than planned. Bunker supply contracts should require documented well-to-wake intensity figures for any biofuel or blend, since a supplier's certificate is the only evidence a verifier will accept. Companies that leave these points open in existing contracts often discover the gap only when a compliance shortfall is already booked.
Free initial consultation – we analyze your situation and find the best path forward.
Request Consulting