Uncertainty has become the defining feature of the maritime sector’s energy transition, and few examples illustrate this better than Norway’s latest move on emissions regulation. In a surprise decision announced at the end of the year, Oslo postponed the adoption of FuelEU Maritime, the European regulation governing the use of alternative fuels in shipping, pushing its implementation back to late 2026. FuelEU Maritime formally entered into force on 1 January 2025 across the European Union, but Norway—while not an EU member—belongs to the European Economic Area (EEA) and is normally expected to align with EU legislation. Instead, it has now delayed adoption twice, creating a regulatory gap that has significant economic consequences for the shipping industry.
A Last-Minute Reversal
The decision caught many observers off guard. On 12 December, the Norwegian Maritime Authority (NMA) had announced, following consultations with the government, that FuelEU Maritime would likely enter into force in Norway on 1 January 2026—earlier than initially expected. The language of that statement revolved around “uncertainty” and “possibility,” but still suggested a relatively clear timetable. Barely ten days later, the NMA reversed course. In a new, far vaguer communication, the authority stated only that the regulation was expected to enter into force “later in the course of 2026,” without committing to any specific date. Between the two announcements came a telling remark from Knut Arild Hareide, now head of the Norwegian Shipowners’ Association and formerly Norway’s Minister of the Environment and Minister of Transport. When implementation still appeared imminent, Hareide commented: “We welcome the regulations, but without haste. We need more than a Christmas break to adapt to rules of this magnitude.”
Shared Goals, Tight Timelines
That sentiment echoes across Europe’s shipping sector. While shipowners broadly agree with the environmental objectives of FuelEU Maritime—designed to gradually cut greenhouse gas emissions from maritime transport—they argue that the timelines are too aggressive and the technological pathways too uncertain. The pressure on Brussels’ green policies has been mounting. At the global level, the International Maritime Organization recently postponed by at least a year its proposed “Net Zero Framework,” a measure comparable in spirit to the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS). The delay followed geopolitical tensions and threats of retaliation, particularly from a bloc of countries led by Saudi Arabia. At the same time, the European Commission has partially softened its stance on banning the sale of new internal combustion engine cars from 2035, signaling a broader reassessment of how fast the green transition can realistically proceed.
Technology Still in Flux
Beyond regulatory uncertainty, shipowners face a deeper structural problem: no one yet knows which technologies will dominate in a zero-emissions future. Commercial vessels typically have a lifecycle of around 25 years, meaning ships ordered today will still be operating well into the 2050s. Should they be built to run on methanol? Ammonia? Hydrogen-based systems? Or entirely different solutions, such as nuclear propulsion? At present, no single option has emerged as a clear winner. What is certain, however, is the cost: alternative fuels can be up to 300 percent more expensive than conventional ones. This uncertainty makes long-term investment decisions extremely risky. Designing engines and fuel systems without knowing which standards will prevail undermines the very predictability that capital-intensive industries like shipping depend on.
A Competitive Advantage for Norwegian Operators
For 2025, EU-based shipping companies have already had to absorb additional costs—either by paying penalties or by investing in biofuels—to meet the first FuelEU Maritime target, a 2 percent reduction in emissions intensity. Norwegian operators, by contrast, have been exempt from these financial burdens. The result is a tangible competitive advantage. For a medium-sized fleet, Norway’s postponement translates into immediate savings of tens of millions of euros, providing greater liquidity and flexibility than that available to many European competitors. Ports such as Bergen, a key maritime hub, stand as visible symbols of this divergence: while operating within one of the world’s most sustainability-conscious countries, Norwegian shipping companies are, for now, navigating the green transition on a slower—and far less costly—trajectory.
A Crack in Europe’s Green Consensus?
Norway’s move comes at a moment of widespread debate and reassessment. While officially framed as a need for more preparation time, the delay risks opening cracks in Europe’s climate policy framework, especially if other countries or sectors begin to push for similar exemptions or postponements. For now, the Norwegian case highlights a central paradox of the maritime energy transition: broad agreement on the destination, but deep disagreement—and uncertainty—about the route and the speed required to get there.
