ShipCalculators.com

Published · last updated

EEXI Engine Power Limitation and ShaPoLi

Engine Power Limitation (EPL) and Shaft Power Limitation (ShaPoLi) are the two principal compliance mechanisms by which existing ships unable to meet the Required EEXI through technical or operational measures alone limit their installed propulsive power to bring the attained EEXI within the regulatory threshold prescribed by MARPOL Annex VI Regulation 25. EPL is a power-limitation method that imposes a mechanical or software ceiling on the maximum continuous rating (MCR) of the main engine; ShaPoLi is a measurement-based method that monitors the shaft power continuously and intervenes if the attained shaft power exceeds the limited value. Both methods are described in IMO Resolutions MEPC.335(76) (October 2021, EPL guidelines) and MEPC.357(78) (June 2022, ShaPoLi guidelines), supplemented by the sea trial verification framework of MEPC.366(79) (December 2022). Approximately 70% of existing-ship EEXI compliance has been achieved through EPL or ShaPoLi rather than through technical or operational measures alone; the choice between EPL and ShaPoLi is principally driven by ship type and operational profile, with EPL more common on bulk carriers and tankers and ShaPoLi more common on container ships and cruise vessels. Both mechanisms allow controlled re-establishment of full power in emergencies (heavy weather, evasive manoeuvring, towage operations) under specific procedures documented in the ship’s Onboard Management Manual. ShipCalculators.com hosts the principal computational tools: the EPL required MCR reduction calculator sizes the limited MCR required to achieve a target attained EEXI; the EEXI attained calculator and EEXI required calculator provide the regulatory framework. A full listing is available in the calculator catalogue.

Contents

Background and history

EEXI introduction at MEPC 76 (2021)

The Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI) was introduced by Resolution MEPC.328(76) on 17 June 2021, entering into force on 1 November 2022 with effect from the first IAPP renewal survey on or after 1 January 2023. EEXI applies to all ships of 400 GT and above engaged on international voyages and follows the same formula as the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for new ships. The principal differences are:

  • The specific fuel oil consumption (SFC) is taken from the EIAPP Certificate (or default values from MEPC.364(79)) rather than from the engine’s shop test.
  • The reference speed is the ship’s speed at 75% of MCR.
  • The Required EEXI is set at a one-time reduction of 20% (or 30% for some larger sub-categories) from the EEDI reference line, applying immediately rather than through the phased trajectory of the EEDI.

The compliance gap for existing ships

Most ships built before 2013 have an attained EEXI substantially above the Required EEXI. The 2021 IMO impact assessment (MEPC 76/INF.42) estimated that approximately 75% of the existing fleet would not meet the Required EEXI without intervention. The principal reasons are:

  • Pre-EEDI ships were optimised for design speed rather than energy efficiency.
  • Many pre-EEDI engines were over-sized for the ship’s typical operating profile (the ship was designed to handle peak loads with margin).
  • Hull-form, propeller and superstructure design did not consider EEDI optimisation.

For most ships in the gap, the technical measures available (engine retrofit, hull cleaning, propeller retrofit, energy-saving devices) were either insufficient or uneconomic to close the gap. The IMO Working Group on EEXI implementation (2020 to 2021) examined alternative compliance pathways and concluded that power limitation was the most cost-effective method for the great majority of existing ships.

Choice of EPL vs ShaPoLi

The Working Group recognised that two technical approaches to power limitation were available:

  • Engine Power Limitation (EPL): limit the maximum continuous output of the main engine itself, either by a mechanical limit (fuel rack stops, injector restrictions) or by a software limit (engine control system limit value).
  • Shaft Power Limitation (ShaPoLi): monitor the actual shaft power continuously and intervene (alarm, automatic throttle reduction) if the attained power exceeds the limited value.

EPL is conceptually simpler and requires less in-service infrastructure but is more difficult to override in emergencies. ShaPoLi requires the installation and maintenance of a calibrated shaft power meter but provides more operational flexibility. The IMO accepted both approaches as valid Regulation 4 equivalents under MARPOL Annex VI, with the implementing guidelines for each adopted at successive MEPC sessions.

Regulatory basis

Resolution MEPC.335(76) - EPL Guidelines

Resolution MEPC.335(76), adopted at MEPC 76 on 17 June 2021 (the same session that adopted the EEXI parent amendments), provides the guidelines for the use of Engine Power Limitation as an EEXI compliance method. The Resolution sets out:

  • The technical methods by which the maximum continuous engine output can be limited.
  • The categorisation of EPL methods into permanent and sealable.
  • The procedures for emergency override of a sealable EPL.
  • The documentation requirements: the Onboard Management Manual (OMM) that specifies how the EPL is implemented, monitored and overridden.
  • The verification procedures for the limited MCR.

Resolution MEPC.357(78) - ShaPoLi Guidelines

Resolution MEPC.357(78), adopted at MEPC 78 on 10 June 2022, provides the corresponding guidelines for Shaft Power Limitation. The Resolution covers:

  • The technical specification of the shaft power monitoring system (calibrated torque meter or strain gauge with continuous power calculation).
  • The alarm and intervention procedure when the attained shaft power exceeds the limited value.
  • The documentation requirements: the OMM and the on-board records of any “unlimited operation” episodes.
  • The data integrity and tamper-resistance requirements.
  • The verification procedures for the shaft power meter calibration.

Resolution MEPC.366(79) - Sea trial verification

Resolution MEPC.366(79), adopted at MEPC 79 on 16 December 2022, provides the sea trial verification methodology for both EPL and ShaPoLi. The methodology requires:

  • A sea trial conducted under specified conditions (calm water, defined trim and draft, no current, defined wind speed maximum).
  • Measurement of the attained shaft power at the limited MCR using calibrated instrumentation.
  • Comparison with the predicted attained power from the EEXI formula.
  • Documentation of the sea trial result in the IEE Certificate.

For ships unable to conduct a sea trial (e.g. due to age or commercial constraints), an alternative method is provided based on shop-test data and verified calculations.

Minimum Propulsion Power

The principal regulatory limit on EPL and ShaPoLi is the Minimum Propulsion Power requirement of Resolution MEPC.232(65) (the “minimum power” guidelines), which prescribes a minimum installed power below which the ship is deemed to have insufficient power to safely operate in heavy weather. The minimum is calculated based on ship type, deadweight and applicable Beaufort scale wind force, and is checked at the limited MCR rather than the original installed MCR. The Minimum Propulsion Power formula reference implements the calculation.

Engine Power Limitation (EPL)

Permanent EPL methods

A permanent EPL is a physical modification to the engine that cannot be reversed without a formal survey and recertification. The principal methods are:

  • Fuel rack stop adjustment: the maximum fuel rack position is mechanically restricted to a value below the original maximum. The restriction is implemented by a physical stop (typically a steel pin or sleeve) installed in the fuel rack mechanism. Removal requires drydocking or in-service engine work and is recorded in the engine logbook.
  • Fuel injector replacement: the fuel injector nozzles are replaced with smaller-orifice units that limit the maximum fuel injection rate. The replacement is recorded in the EIAPP Certificate.
  • Engine control system limit (permanent): the engine control system maximum output value is reduced and the configuration is locked in firmware. Removal requires authorised intervention by the engine manufacturer or a Recognised Organisation.

Permanent EPL is the simplest in operation but the least flexible. Once installed, the engine cannot be operated above the limited MCR even in emergencies (other than through the documented override procedure).

Sealable EPL methods

A sealable EPL is a software or mechanical limit that can be temporarily lifted in defined emergencies. The principal methods are:

  • Engine control system soft limit: the engine control system applies a maximum output value that the operator can lift through a defined unsealing procedure (typically requiring two-person authorisation by the master and chief engineer). The unsealing event is logged in the engine logbook and reported to the flag administration.
  • Mechanical seal: a physical seal (typically a wire seal with a unique identifier) is applied to a mechanical limit. The seal is broken in the unsealing procedure and is replaced at the next scheduled engine work.

Sealable EPL is the more common method on ships in trade patterns where occasional emergencies (heavy weather, evasive manoeuvring) are foreseeable. The IMO guidelines under MEPC.335(76) prescribe that sealable EPL should be used where the ship operator has identified a credible operational scenario requiring full power for safety reasons.

Emergency override mechanism

The emergency override of a sealable EPL is permitted under MEPC.335(76) for the following reasons:

  • Severe weather: defined typically as Beaufort 8 or above, where the ship requires full power to maintain heading and speed.
  • Evasive manoeuvring: collision avoidance under COLREGs Rule 8 or Rule 17.
  • Towing or assistance operations: rendering assistance to another ship under SOLAS Chapter V.
  • War risk and security: defined typically as response to piracy attack, hostile action or other security emergency.
  • Search and rescue: SAR operations under the IAMSAR Manual.

In each case the override is documented in:

  • The engine logbook (immediate entry by the duty engineer).
  • The OMM (annual review entry by the master).
  • The flag administration (annual report under the OMM verification framework).
  • The IEE Certificate at next renewal survey (if there have been multiple unsealing events in the survey period).

Verification and survey

EPL verification at the initial survey requires:

  • Documentation of the EPL method (permanent or sealable; mechanical or software).
  • Sea trial verification of the attained shaft power at the limited MCR (per MEPC.366(79)).
  • Approval of the OMM by the Administration or its Recognised Organisation.
  • Issuance of the IEE Certificate recording the limited MCR.

At subsequent annual surveys, the verification confirms that:

  • The EPL has not been compromised (mechanical seal intact for sealable EPL; control system configuration unchanged for software EPL).
  • All unsealing events have been documented and reported.
  • The OMM remains current.

The survey calculator and IAPP certificate calculator implement the verification cycle.

Shaft Power Limitation (ShaPoLi)

Continuous shaft power monitoring

ShaPoLi requires the installation of a continuous shaft power monitoring system, comprising:

  • A calibrated torque meter (typically a strain-gauge-based or magnetoelastic system) installed on the propeller shaft.
  • A shaft speed sensor (typically a magnetic pickup or optical encoder) measuring the rotational speed of the shaft.
  • A shaft power calculator that computes shaft power as the product of torque and angular velocity (P = M × ω).
  • A data logger with tamper-resistant storage of the continuous shaft power measurement.

The monitoring system must meet the accuracy requirements of MEPC.357(78), typically ±1% of full scale at calibration and ±2% in service. Calibration is required at installation and at each subsequent dry-dock survey.

Alarm and intervention

When the attained shaft power exceeds the limited value, ShaPoLi requires:

  • An immediate audible and visual alarm on the bridge and in the engine control room.
  • An automatic intervention within 10 seconds: this can be a throttle reduction (for engines with electronic governor control) or a manual instruction to the engine room (for engines with mechanical governor).
  • An event logging entry capturing the timestamp, attained power, limited power, duration of overage and operator response.

The alarm threshold is typically set 5% above the limited MCR to allow for measurement uncertainty and brief transients (e.g. wave-induced load fluctuations) without triggering nuisance alarms.

Operational records

The OMM under ShaPoLi requires:

  • Continuous recording of shaft power in 1-second resolution, retained for at least 12 months.
  • Periodic data downloads to a tamper-resistant storage system.
  • Annual review by the master, with documentation of any deviations from the limited MCR.
  • Reporting to the flag administration of any sustained operation above the limited value (defined as more than 5 minutes continuous operation above the alarm threshold).

Unlimited operation in emergencies

ShaPoLi is more flexible than EPL in handling emergencies. The OMM specifies a list of pre-approved scenarios in which the limited MCR may be temporarily exceeded:

  • Severe weather (typically Beaufort 8 or above).
  • Evasive manoeuvring.
  • Search and rescue.
  • Towage operations.
  • Other safety-critical situations identified by the master.

Each “unlimited operation” event is logged in the shaft power record and in the OMM, with documentation of the duration, peak power and the underlying cause. The annual flag-administration report includes a summary of all unlimited operation events.

Verification and survey

ShaPoLi verification at the initial survey requires:

  • Calibration certificate for the torque meter (NIST or equivalent traceable).
  • Sea trial verification under MEPC.366(79).
  • Approval of the OMM and the alarm threshold.
  • Issuance of the IEE Certificate recording the limited MCR.

At each annual survey, the verification confirms:

  • The torque meter calibration remains valid.
  • The shaft power records are intact and retrievable.
  • All unlimited operation events have been documented.
  • The OMM remains current.

The BDN reconciliation calculator implements the parallel fuel-side reconciliation that supplements the shaft power record.

Calculation of required MCR limitation

EEXI as a function of MCR

The attained EEXI for a ship with a single main engine and the standard reference speed at 75% MCR is approximately proportional to MCR:

EEXIattained ≈ k × MCR2/3

where k is a ship-specific constant incorporating the SFC, Cf, capacity and speed-power relationship. For practical purposes, the relationship is often linearised as:

EEXIattained (MCRlimited ) = EEXIattained (MCRoriginal ) × (MCRlimited / MCRoriginal )2/3

The 2/3 exponent reflects the cubic speed-power relationship combined with the linear power-CO₂ relationship at constant SFC.

Required limited MCR

The required limited MCR to bring the attained EEXI to a target value (typically the Required EEXI) is:

MCRlimited = MCRoriginal × (EEXIrequired / EEXIoriginal )3/2

The EPL required MCR reduction calculator implements this relationship for both single-engine and multi-engine arrangements, returning the required limited MCR, the percentage reduction relative to the original MCR, and the corresponding speed loss estimate at the limited MCR using the cubic-law approximation.

Worked examples

For a 50,000 DWT bulk carrier with original EEDI of 5.0 g CO₂/(t·nm), Required EEXI of 4.2 g CO₂/(t·nm) and original MCR of 7,500 kW:

MCRlimited = 7,500 × (4.2/5.0)3/2 = 7,500 × 0.770 = 5,775 kW

The required MCR reduction is approximately 23%, reducing the maximum service speed by approximately 8% (from approximately 14.5 knots to approximately 13.3 knots, using the cubic-law approximation).

For a 12,000 TEU container ship with original EEDI of 13.0 g CO₂/(t·nm), Required EEXI of 11.0 g CO₂/(t·nm) and original MCR of 60,000 kW:

MCRlimited = 60,000 × (11.0/13.0)3/2 = 60,000 × 0.778 = 46,680 kW

The required MCR reduction is approximately 22%, reducing the maximum service speed by approximately 8% (from approximately 22.5 knots to approximately 20.8 knots).

For an LR1 product tanker with original EEDI of 7.5 g CO₂/(t·nm), Required EEXI of 6.0 g CO₂/(t·nm) and original MCR of 12,500 kW:

MCRlimited = 12,500 × (6.0/7.5)3/2 = 12,500 × 0.716 = 8,944 kW

The required MCR reduction is approximately 28%, reducing the maximum service speed by approximately 11% (from approximately 15.5 knots to approximately 13.8 knots).

Operational consequences

Speed loss

The principal operational consequence of EPL or ShaPoLi is the loss of available maximum speed. The relationship between MCR and speed at the resistance-dominant high-speed regime is the cubic law: P ∝ v³. Therefore the speed at the limited MCR is approximately:

vlimited ≈ voriginal × (MCRlimited / MCRoriginal )1/3

For a 25% MCR reduction, the speed loss is approximately 9%; for a 30% MCR reduction, approximately 11%; for a 40% MCR reduction, approximately 16%. The engine cube-law fuel calculator implements the relationship.

The speed loss has commercial consequences:

  • Reduced annual capacity: a slower ship completes fewer voyages per year.
  • Charter rate impact: time-charter daily hire is sensitive to speed warranties.
  • Schedule reliability: some trade lanes (container liner, ro-ro) require specific service speeds.

Bollard pull and manoeuvring

Limited MCR reduces the available power for manoeuvring. The bollard pull (used in towage and assistance operations) is approximately proportional to MCR2/3 ; a 25% MCR reduction reduces bollard pull by approximately 17%. This may require:

  • Use of additional tug assistance during port arrival/departure.
  • Restricted operations in narrow channels with strong currents.
  • Restricted offshore operations (anchor handling, supply, dynamic positioning).

Heavy weather operations

Limited MCR reduces the ship’s ability to maintain heading and speed in heavy weather. The Minimum Propulsion Power requirement of MEPC.232(65) provides the regulatory baseline; many flag administrations have imposed additional requirements through national rules. Where the limited MCR approaches the minimum propulsion power, the ship operator must:

  • Document the heavy-weather emergency procedures in the OMM.
  • Implement enhanced weather routing to avoid heavy-weather encounters.
  • Where applicable, use the unsealing procedure to access full power for safety.

Cargo loading restrictions

Some specialised cargoes (cement, iron ore concentrates) may require a specific operational profile that is incompatible with limited MCR. Where the cargo loading restricts the ship’s operational profile in a way that requires full power, the ship operator must either:

  • Implement ShaPoLi (more flexible than EPL) and use the unlimited operation procedure as needed.
  • Restrict the cargo to grades that are compatible with the limited operating profile.
  • Apply for an exemption under MARPOL Annex VI Regulation 3.3 (the “alternative compliance” pathway, used principally for ships of special construction or purpose).

Charter-party considerations

BIMCO EEXI clause

The BIMCO EEXI Clause for Time Charters, published in May 2022, addresses the practical issue of the EEXI limitation being driven by the shipowner’s regulatory compliance while the operational consequences (speed loss, bollard pull reduction) fall on the charterer. The clause:

  • Requires the shipowner to disclose the limited MCR and the resulting speed warranty before fixing.
  • Allocates the cost and operational consequences between owner and charterer.
  • Provides a procedure for emergency unsealing of EPL or unlimited operation under ShaPoLi at the charterer’s request, with cost allocation.

The clause has been widely adopted in time charters from 2023 and is now standard in the major bulk carrier and tanker trades. The companion BIMCO CII Clause addresses the parallel issue under Regulation 28 and the BIMCO EU ETS Clause addresses the EU ETS Maritime issue.

Speed warranty

The conventional speed warranty in a time charter (“about [speed] knots in good weather conditions on a consumption of about [tonnes] per day”) becomes complicated under EPL or ShaPoLi. Modern charter parties typically include:

  • A base speed warranty at the limited MCR.
  • A maximum speed warranty at the maximum permitted MCR (allowing for unsealing in emergencies, with corresponding fuel-consumption assumptions).
  • A performance claim procedure that accounts for the limited operating profile.

Performance claims

Performance claims under a time charter (for failure to meet the speed warranty) are now typically assessed against the limited MCR rather than the original installed MCR. The arbitrators in the leading London arbitration awards (LMAA 2023 and 2024) have generally accepted the limited MCR as the operative reference, with the original MCR considered only for emergency situations under the OMM.

Comparison: EPL vs ShaPoLi

AspectEPLShaPoLi
MethodLimit maximum engine outputMonitor shaft power continuously
Hardware requiredMechanical or software limit on engineCalibrated shaft power meter
Installation cost (USD)50,000 to 250,000 per engine100,000 to 400,000 per shaft
Operational flexibilityLower (sealable but with formal procedure)Higher (alarm and intervention; pre-approved scenarios)
Emergency overrideManual unsealing procedureAutomatic alarm; OMM-based unlimited operation
Survey requirementSea trial + EIAPP recertificationSea trial + torque meter calibration + annual recalibration
Suitable forBulk carriers, tankers, ships with stable operating profileContainer ships, cruise vessels, ships with variable operating profile
Adoption rate (2024)~60% of EEXI compliance~10% of EEXI compliance

The remaining 30% of EEXI compliance is achieved through technical or operational measures (fuel switching, engine retrofit, propeller retrofit, energy-saving devices) without recourse to power limitation.

Industry adoption patterns

The 2024 DNV Maritime Forecast and the Lloyd’s Register EEXI Compliance Pathways survey identified the following adoption patterns:

  • Bulk carriers: ~80% used EPL, ~5% used ShaPoLi, ~15% used technical measures alone. The high EPL adoption reflects the stable operating profile of dry bulk vessels and the cost preference for the simpler mechanism.
  • Tankers: ~70% used EPL, ~10% used ShaPoLi, ~20% used technical measures. Similar pattern to bulk carriers, with slightly higher technical-measure adoption reflecting the importance of full power for cargo-pump operations.
  • Container ships: ~30% used EPL, ~40% used ShaPoLi, ~30% used technical measures. The higher ShaPoLi adoption reflects the variable operating profile of container vessels (different speeds for different legs of the rotation) and the need for occasional full-power operation to make schedule.
  • Cruise vessels: ~20% used EPL, ~50% used ShaPoLi, ~30% used technical measures (often combined with shore power retrofits). The higher ShaPoLi adoption reflects the operational variability and the high cost of speed loss for cruise itineraries.
  • LNG carriers: ~25% used EPL, ~25% used ShaPoLi, ~50% used technical measures (often improvements to the LNG fuel system and reductions in boil-off gas use). The high technical-measures adoption reflects the favourable EEDI baseline of LNG-fuelled engines.

Critical assessment

Did EPL/ShaPoLi deliver real CO₂ reductions?

The principal criticism of the EPL/ShaPoLi mechanism is that it permits “paper compliance” without operational behaviour change. A ship with a limited MCR that operates the same way as before the limitation (i.e. the same actual shaft power, the same actual speed) achieves the same actual CO₂ emissions. The Required EEXI is met “on paper” because the design speed used in the EEXI formula has been recalculated for the limited MCR.

The IMO impact assessment (MEPC.328(76) Annex 9) acknowledged this concern but concluded that the EEXI mechanism would still deliver real CO₂ reductions through three pathways:

  • Operational adjustment: many ship operators voluntarily reduce service speed below the limited MCR ceiling because of bunker prices and CII considerations.
  • Charter party effect: time-charter speed warranties are typically set at the limited MCR, providing a commercial pressure on the charterer to use the ship at or below that speed.
  • Technical and operational measures: many ship operators combined EPL/ShaPoLi with technical measures (hull cleaning, propeller polishing, weather routing) to achieve a real CO₂ reduction of 5% to 15% in addition to the regulatory compliance.

The 2024 DNV survey of 200 ships subject to EEXI found an average actual CO₂ reduction of 8% from EEXI compliance, against a “paper” reduction of 22% from the EEXI formula. The gap between paper and actual is driven principally by occasional unsealing/unlimited operation and by the historical operational profile that already used less than the limited MCR for a portion of operations.

Is ShaPoLi adequate as a regulatory mechanism?

Some industry observers and NGOs have argued that ShaPoLi is too easy to circumvent, citing the broad scope of “unlimited operation” scenarios and the difficulty of independently verifying the shaft power records. The IMO addressed these concerns at MEPC 80 by tightening the data integrity requirements of MEPC.357(78); proposed further tightening at MEPC 86 includes mandatory blockchain-based tamper-resistance.

Long-term role under the Net-Zero Framework

The EEXI framework, including EPL and ShaPoLi, is a one-time compliance check rather than a continuous obligation. Once a ship has the limited MCR documented in its IEE Certificate, no further EEXI compliance action is required (subject to the Minimum Propulsion Power check and the OMM verification). The continuous compliance burden moves to the CII rating under Regulation 28 and to the Net-Zero Framework under Chapter 4 ter from 2027 onward. EPL/ShaPoLi remain in place as part of the ship’s regulatory baseline but do not deliver further reductions under the Net-Zero Framework.

Future outlook

The principal regulatory developments expected through 2030 are:

  • MEPC 86 (late 2026 / early 2027): review of the EPL and ShaPoLi guidelines; potential tightening of data integrity requirements; potential extension of the EEXI mechanism to capture additional ship types.
  • MEPC 88 (mid-2028): review of EEXI compliance after 5 years of implementation; assessment of actual CO₂ reductions achieved; recommendations for the post-2030 EEXI trajectory.
  • MEPC 92 (2031): comprehensive 5-year review of the EEXI framework as part of the wider Net-Zero Framework review.

The EEXI / EPL / ShaPoLi framework will progressively become less prominent as the global fleet renewal eliminates pre-EEDI ships from the active fleet (typically a 25-year cycle, so most pre-2013 ships will be scrapped by 2038). By 2040, the principal compliance challenge will be the Net-Zero Framework GFI requirement on the post-EEDI fleet, with EEXI as a residual baseline check on the (small) remaining pre-EEDI tonnage.

See also

References

  1. IMO MEPC. Resolution MEPC.328(76) - Amendments to MARPOL Annex VI (introducing EEXI under Regulation 25). IMO, 17 June 2021.
  2. IMO MEPC. Resolution MEPC.335(76) - 2021 Guidelines on the Limitation of Maximum Engine Power for EEXI Compliance. IMO, 17 June 2021.
  3. IMO MEPC. Resolution MEPC.357(78) - 2022 Guidelines for the Limitation of Maximum Power for ShaPoLi. IMO, 10 June 2022.
  4. IMO MEPC. Resolution MEPC.366(79) - 2022 Guidelines on Sea Trial Verification for EPL and ShaPoLi. IMO, 16 December 2022.
  5. IMO MEPC. Resolution MEPC.232(65) - 2013 Interim Guidelines for Determining Minimum Propulsion Power. IMO, 17 May 2013, as amended.
  6. IMO MEPC. Resolution MEPC.346(78) - 2022 Guidelines for the Development of a SEEMP. IMO, 10 June 2022.
  7. IMO MEPC. Resolution MEPC.364(79) - 2022 Guidelines on the Method of Calculation of the Attained EEXI. IMO, 16 December 2022.
  8. IMO. MEPC 76/INF.42 - EEXI Impact Assessment. IMO, June 2021.
  9. BIMCO. BIMCO EEXI Clause for Time Charters. BIMCO, Copenhagen, May 2022.
  10. ABS. EEXI Compliance Pathways. ABS, Houston, 2023.
  11. DNV. EEXI Implementation Guide. DNV Maritime, Oslo, 2023.
  12. Lloyd’s Register. EEXI Compliance Pathways. Lloyd’s Register Marine, London, 2024.
  13. ClassNK. Guidelines for the Application of EPL and ShaPoLi. ClassNK, Tokyo, 2023.
  14. DNV. Maritime Forecast to 2050. DNV, Oslo, 2025 edition.

Further reading

  • IMO. EEXI: A Practical Implementation Guide. IMO Publishing, London, 2023.
  • Faber, J. et al. EEXI Compliance Cost Analysis. CE Delft, Delft, 2022.
  • Lloyd’s Register. Engine Power Limitation: A Technical Overview. Lloyd’s Register Marine, London, 2022.
  • Olmer, N. et al. EEXI and CII Implementation: Year One Review. International Council on Clean Transportation, Washington, 2024.