New research shows how regulation could reshape shipping
Amid regulatory uncertainty, there is one key challenge to ensuring shipping meets its decarbonization goals: making the right decisions today. DNV’s latest edition of Maritime Forecast to 2050 explores how different scenarios could reshape fuel demand, investment decisions, and decarbonization pathways, helping shipowners to navigate uncertainty and build resilient fleets.
Shipping’s energy transition has entered a new phase. The technology options are increasingly well understood. LNG, methanol, biofuels, wind-assisted propulsion, and emerging ammonia solutions are no longer concepts but commercial realities. Yet despite this progress, shipowners face a more difficult challenge than ever: making investment decisions amid unprecedented regulatory uncertainty.
The 2026 edition of DNV’s Maritime Forecast to 2050 argues that uncertainty itself is now becoming one of the most important drivers of fleet strategy. “Decisions taken today on vessel design, retrofits, and fuel capability will determine competitiveness for decades, while the outcome of ongoing regulatory negotiations could significantly reshape the economics of shipping’s energy transition,” says Øyvind Sekkesæter, Senior Consultant at DNV and lead author of this year’s report. “Maritime Forecast to 2050 aims to assist that decision-making with our latest core insights and case study examples.”
Four regulatory scenarios could shape shipping very differently
This year’s Maritime Forecast takes a scenario-based approach, presenting four possible regulatory futures for shipping. These range from the full adoption of IMO’s initially approved Net-Zero Framework (NZF) to its rejection and prolonged political gridlock, while also exploring several intermediate outcomes, including a delayed or revised NZF and scenarios where regional regulations play a more prominent role in driving decarbonization. Rather than predicting which outcome is most likely, the scenarios illustrate how different regulatory futures could affect fuel demand, energy-efficiency uptake, investment signals, and fleet competitiveness.
Stronger global regulation accelerates demand for low-GHG fuels and increases the attractiveness of energy-efficiency measures, while the absence of such regulation slows market development. The result is a transition whose pace may vary significantly depending on future policy decisions.
“For shipowners, this means the challenge is no longer identifying a single fuel pathway that fits the operational profile of their fleet. Instead, it is preparing fleets that remain competitive across multiple possible futures,” Sekkesæter concludes.
Tapping the fleet’s efficiency potential
Fully realizing the fleet’s energy-saving potential requires improvements not only to newbuilds but also to existing ships through retrofits.
Installing energy-saving devices during scheduled dry-docking can be a highly cost-effective decarbonization strategy, as illustrated by the Maritime Forecast’s case study of a hypothetical 15-year-old 5,000 TEU containership (built in 2013).
This envisages USD 2.35 million being invested to retrofit the ship with hydrodynamic enhancements including a bow retrofit, propeller upgrade, and a propeller boss cap fin.
The vessel can achieve estimated fuel savings of around 16% under the modelling assumptions. Evaluating the investment under three price scenarios for low sulphur heavy fuel oil (LSHFO) results in payback periods from 1.4 years to 4.2 years.
A USD 10 million opportunity: The business case for ship retrofits is strengthening
In the above scenarios, the net present value of the net savings is projected to reach between USD 2 and 10 million by 2038. The investment case is further strengthened by rising compliance costs under regulatory schemes such as the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and FuelEU Maritime, which were excluded from the baseline assumptions.
“The key takeaway from this study is that even a 15-year-old vessel can offer a compelling business case for retrofitting energy-saving measures. The report also reveals that, unlike fuel choices, efficiency improvements create value under every regulatory scenario,” highlights Sekkesæter. At fleet level, the implications are substantial.
Operational excellence and quantifying real-world performance
Of course, shipowners making multi-million-dollar investments need to be able to trust that the claimed benefits of equipment and measures are real.
Standardized measurements and verification are a solution. To bridge trust gaps, DNV’s Vessel Technical Index (VTI), introduced under Recommended Practice DNV-RP-0675, provides a normalized, dimensionless propulsion power index that isolates a ship’s technical performance from external factors like weather and speed.
Using the VTI can verify the impact of routine operational measures. The Maritime Forecast reports that for one chartered vessel, sensor data collected before and after hull and propeller cleaning showed a statistically significant VTI reduction from a mean of 1.32 down to 1.14 relative to an “as-new” baseline of 1.00.
This improvement saved approximately 120 tonnes of fuel over a 33-day voyage. At a fuel price of USD 470/tonne, this equated to USD 56,000 in fuel cost savings, four times more than the USD 14,000 cleaning cost.
Alternative fuel technology uptake is surging
In examining ship-fuel trends through the lens of market data, the Maritime Forecast finds a major shift underway in the global order book, with alternative-fuel-capable gross tonnage surging from just 0.4% in 2020 to 5.2% in 2026.
Uptake is highly segmented, driven by different commercial realities and trade routes. Car carriers see the highest share, with 26% being alternative-fuel-capable, followed by cruise ships (19%) and containerships (11%). Bulk carriers (1.1%) and tankers (1.2% to 5%) lag in part due to tramp trading patterns and uncertain bunkering availability.
DNV data shows LNG and methanol dominating alternative fuel systems, though their installed capacity is underutilized.
“Many dual-fuel ships continue to use conventional fuel oils because alternative fuels remain more expensive and regulatory incentives are limited. Their dual-fuel capability therefore provides future flexibility rather than guaranteeing daily use of alternative fuels,” Sekkesæter explains.
Estimating potential demand for low-GHG fuels
To project how these trends are shaping the maritime fuel transition, the Maritime Forecast estimates total potential demand for low-GHG fuels in shipping using two selected regulatory scenarios that bracket the range of possible outcomes for NZF, as shown in the figure below.
By 2050, maritime demand for low-GHG fuels could range from 33 Mtoe to 185 Mtoe depending on regulatory ambition and energy-efficiency uptake. However, total demand across all sectors could exceed 2,200 Mtoe under a net-zero pathway. Aviation, manufacturing, power generation, and road transport are all expected to compete for many of the same fuel molecules and feedstocks.
This competition is particularly intense for biofuels, which are currently among the most economically attractive decarbonization options. Because sustainable biomass availability is inherently limited, growing demand across sectors is likely to increase competition and put upward pressure on fuel costs. DNV’s analysis suggests that higher-cost pathways such as blue fuels and e-fuels will increasingly be needed to balance future demand.
A bottleneck for alternative fuel bunkering
For financiers and insurers evaluating vessel risk, and charterers planning voyages, fuel availability in ports remains a critical factor in determining fuel viability. Encouragingly, the global bunkering vessel fleet is expanding rapidly. Operational LNG bunkering vessels have risen from 25 in 2020 to 67 today, while 24 methanol bunkering vessels are operating and eight are on order. The first dedicated ammonia bunkering vessel recently entered the order book to operate in Singapore.
However, low-GHG fuel bunkering is highly concentrated along major European and East Asian trade routes. The Maritime Forecast also finds that while low-GHG bunkering has occurred at nearly 90 ports globally, the type of fuel available varies dramatically.
Biodiesels, including FAME and HVO, are the most mature and widely distributed, supplied at nearly 70 ports. Liquefied bio-methane is available at 20 ports, mainly in Europe. Low-GHG methanol has been bunkered at 16 ports, concentrated in East Asia and Western Europe. Low-GHG ammonia remains in its infancy, with bunkering reported at only three ports, all in East Asia.
“Shipowners need fuel and technology strategies that remain competitive across different regulatory outcomes. At the same time, clear demand signals and concerted efforts are needed to scale the solutions and infrastructure supporting shipping’s energy transition,” concludes Sekkesæter.
Get regular industry insights!
Join the thousands of industry leaders today who have already signed up to receive the latest insights.
sign up