Call for evidence outcome

Use of maritime shore power in the UK: summary of call for evidence responses

Updated 5 July 2023

Executive summary

Background

This document summarises the responses to the Department for Transport’s call for evidence on shore power, which ran between 7 February 2022 and 25 April 2022.

This call for evidence invited views on different aspects of supporting the deployment of shore power and the provision of shoreside electrical power to a docked vessel while its engines are shut down in the UK. We sought information on the:

• costs of shore power
• benefits of shore power, including the potential for emission reductions
• scale of vessel emissions at berth
• options to enable the rollout of this technology

Context

While shipping is generally a relatively carbon efficient mode for transporting freight, UK domestic maritime vessels represented around 5% of the UK’s domestic transport greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2020. This was more than domestic rail and bus emissions combined. This highlights the importance of the government’s plans to decarbonise the sector.

In July 2021, the government published a transport decarbonisation plan, which set out the commitments and actions needed to decarbonise the UK transport system including maritime. The plan included a commitment to consult on how the government can support the wider deployment of shore power, including consideration of regulatory interventions, for both vessels and ports, that could drive deployment as we transition to a net zero world.

In February 2022, we published this call for evidence to gather evidence on the impact and implications of shore power in reducing emissions to help inform further policy development work.

The call for evidence invited respondents to submit their views and any available data on 22 questions. This document summarises the points raised by respondents under key themes.

This document is a summary of responses and does not represent the government’s position or offer a formal response to the evidence given. We will be publishing a consultation later this year with policy proposals influenced by this evidence.

Summary of responses

Overall, 73% of respondents were supportive of shore power as one of the available technologies to reduce emissions at berth, 12% were completely against it and 15% provided a neutral response.

There was a shared acknowledgement that there were several variables associated with the costs of shore power uptake and the level of GHG and air pollutant emissions at berth. A range of responses were subsequently provided on costs associated with shore power and emissions data across different locations in the UK.

There was also consensus over the barriers and incentives for shore power uptake in the UK. Most respondents highlighted high capital costs, demand uncertainty, high electricity prices and energy grid constraints as the most significant barriers to shore power growth.

Whilst most respondents were supportive of the government providing a greater coordinating function regarding the uptake of shore power, there was no shared consensus over what this role may involve and resulted in respondents providing different suggestions on the government’s potential coordination role.

There were also a range of views provided on what topics should be included to maximise the value of government coordinated guidance on shore power projects.

Views on a government mandate for shore power were clearer. A majority of respondents agreed to a mandate either on shore power or a technological neutral option combining alternative fuels, such as a zero-emission berth mandate. Respondents who were against a mandate outlined the various barriers that would make it difficult to implement.

A few respondents provided options for economic incentives. There was also general agreement for direct funding or access to funding to enable shore power uptake, there were a range of suggestions on where funding should be focused.

Responses received

A total of 34 responses were received from a range of organisations. The summary contained in this document describes the key themes set out in responses.

The following table provides a breakdown of those who responded.

Stakeholder group	Number of respondents	Locations
Ports	10	Dover, Aberdeen, Montrose, Angus, Scotland, England, London, Portsmouth, nationwide
Shipping, cruise and ferry	4	Portsmouth, Southampton, London, multinational
Energy associations	7	Multinational, Aberdeen, London, South West Wales, Staffordshire, UK and Ireland
Technology and consultancies	4	Warrington, Sweden, Nottinghamshire, south coast England, multinational
Manufacturer of building materials	1	Multinational
Academic	2	Manchester, England
Fishing association	1	Brexham, Cornwall
Consortium	4	Aberdeen, Sullom Voe, Sella Ness, Shetland, South Shields, London
Private individual	1	Orkney

Summary of responses on the rationale for intervention

Question 1

Can you provide any evidence to quantify the current level of GHG and air pollutant emissions from vessels at berth in UK ports? Please disaggregate this information as much as possible (for example, to cover different ports and vessel types and operational and idle vessels).

The call for evidence outlined that the scale of the total impact on UK GHG and air pollutant emissions from the use of shore power at UK ports is expected to be influenced by a range of factors. These include the type of marine fuel that would be used, the energy efficiency of the vessels calling at UK ports, and how the electricity that is used is generated.

A range of data was provided by respondents to quantify the levels of GHG and air pollutant emissions from vessels at berth in UK ports. Respondents provided CO2 and NOx emissions annual data from vessels at berth in 8 different ports across the UK between 2016 and 2019. Respondents found that emissions from ports came from a range of sources including vessels at berth and non-road mobile machinery such as cranes. Respondents provided data which showed that 63% to 79% of CO2 emissions at ports came from vessels at berth. Similarly, respondents found that NOx emissions at ports ranged from 76.9% to 93.3% from vessels at berth.

Some respondents agreed that container ships, oil tankers and roll-on-roll-off (RoRo) cargo emit the most emissions at berth. A port association provided data from their published 2016 inventory report showing 65,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions across vessel types in 2016, with 15,000 from container ships, 15,000 from oil tankers and over 10,000 from RoRo cargo at berth. SO2 emissions across vessel types was shown at 45 tonnes within the same year, with container ships emitting 14 tonnes and RoRo cargo emitting 10 tonnes, followed by oil tankers producing 6 tonnes.

An energy management association provided an emissions at berth report and found the best estimate of NOx and PM10 emissions from ships auxiliary engines at berth in the same year (2016) in the UK as equivalent to approximately 1.1 to 1.2 million diesel car exhausts. Offshore supply vessels, fishing boats, RoRo cargo, bulk carriers and passenger ferries were also seen to contribute most to the estimates of emissions from auxiliary engines at berth.

Respondents have carried out various levels of modelling with one reporting that vessels at berth in the UK used over 641GWh of energy in 2019. This corresponded to around 176,000 tonnes of GHG emissions from vessels at berth in the UK in 2019, accounting for around 0.03% of UK GHG emissions that year. The specifics of whether this referred to all vessels in the UK was unclear.

Another model, which was an emissions assessment for 2017, found that irrespective of differences in cargo and vessel mix, the overwhelming majority of emissions in ports are generated by vessels (typically 70 to 90% or more) and emissions of vessels at berth are significantly higher (72%) than emissions from vessels manoeuvring (16%). NOx was reported for being the dominant pollutant, accounting for 86% of total emissions with vessels producing 94% of that.

A few respondents highlighted their difficulty in gathering emissions data.

Question 2

In your opinion, what impact would shore power have in reducing emissions at berth for (a) different vessel types and (b) different locations in the UK? Could shore power have any other positive or negative environmental impacts (for example, any impacts on marine pollution)? Please quantify and disaggregate your responses as much as possible.

The call for evidence outlined that although the provision of shore power has been proven for twenty years, its deployment remains limited in the UK, with only 2 UK ports equipped with shore power facilities besides the Royal Navy base at Portsmouth. Government therefore sought to understand the potential impacts of this technology across different locations in the UK.

There were a range of responses provided on the impacts of shore power in reducing emissions at berth according to the vessel type. It was suggested that certain types of ships were estimated to reduce CO2 emission by up to 35% during a port stay using shore power as well as added benefits of reducing noise and vibrations. These added benefits were also echoed by other respondents.

One respondent reported that within ports it is possible that shore power could reduce emissions from 80% of vessel activity with the remaining 20% requiring shipboard alternative solutions or fuels, like batteries, hydrogen, ammonia, methanol and biofuels.

It was reported by some that there is an estimated value of the health and environmental impacts that could be avoided by eliminating all NOx, SO2 and PM10 emissions from ships’ auxiliary engines at berth around the whole UK.  In 2016 this was valued at £109 to £402 million a year.

Some respondents highlighted that whilst there are benefits to shore power, there are also potential negatives including the potential cost and disruption caused to local areas as a result of upgrading the grid and the environmental impacts of capital works.

There was consensus across most of the respondents that the scale of benefits would however vary greatly by port, vessel type and routes.

Questions 3 and 4

Can you provide estimates of the costs and benefits for any current or future shore power projects in the UK, including emission savings, costs of infrastructure at ports and costs of any upgrades to existing network connections and any reinforcements required to the electricity network? If possible, please provide estimates of cost recovery periods for these projects and estimates of the associated increases in electricity demand?

Can you provide estimates of the total overall costs and benefits if shore power is taken-up commercially at scale across the UK, including the overall emission savings and electricity demand? Please disaggregate these estimates across different locations, if possible.

The call for evidence outlined that the available evidence on the costs to rollout shore power across the UK are subject to uncertainty such as the circumstances of different ports and different scenarios for how the fuels used by ships in UK ports could evolve in the future. The importance of more analytical work was highlighted to understand the costs of a significant rollout of shore power across the UK and how costs could vary under different circumstances.

Respondents acknowledged that there are different costs associated with shore power. As outlined in the call for evidence, these include the:

• costs to vessels of fitting the necessary equipment to make use of shore power
• investment required within ports to enable this
• upgrading of existing port electricity network connections

There was consensus that costs differed according to the types of vessel and needs of different ports. There would likely also be a need for additional costs beyond implementation for significant ground works, cable upgrades, new substations, and potential switch gear technology to facilitate transitions.

Most respondents provided a range of cost estimates that were specific to their ports. The biggest infrastructure costs set out were the:

• size of shore power connections - small connections could cost up to £10,000 and were reported for being high in demand whereas larger connections were less in demand and costs could range between £50,000 to £250,000
• infrastructure and equipment including switchgear such as electrical disconnect switches, fuses or circuit breakers at each berth location to distribute power electricity securely and without failures - costs varied but an average estimate was provided starting at roughly £250,000
• upgrade costs for cable and duct networks - one port estimated this at £1 million for cruise and ferries and £250,000 for cargo ships
• frequency and voltage equipment to cater for all potential users - this would often require a transformer which could double installation costs
• ship-shore connection equipment - costs ranged from £50,000 to £11 million depending on the size and needs of different ports and the amount of shore power connections needed
• costs to upgrade incoming supply to provide sufficient power to ferries - this was estimated at £20 million at one port in the south of England
• there was consensus that costs were also impacted by the regularity of use as ports are charged daily for the standing charge for the substation

Retrofitting costs for vessels to enable use of a shore power installation were estimated to range between £400,000 to £800,000 for large vessels and £60,000 to £400,000 for small vessels.

Most respondents highlighted that the projection of electricity demands varied according to vessel type. Respondents also outlined that whilst most large vessels required 60Hz, as the UK energy grid operates at 50Hz, a frequency conversion would be required which would also contribute to costs.

Question 5

In your opinion, what are the key (a) barriers and (b) incentives for ship owners, ship operators and ports to invest in shore power?

The call for evidence highlighted significant barriers to the uptake of shore power based on research undertaken by industry and government. Respondents corroborated many of these barriers. The following is a summary of the key barriers’ respondents raised for the uptake of shore power for ship owners, operators and ports.

Stranded asset risk

Respondents highlighted that the high level of investment needed in shoreside port infrastructure could risk becoming a stranded asset if vessels did not use it. Additionally, several respondents also mentioned the rise of alternative options including hybrid and battery advancements and the uncertainty of a long-term technological solution that could remove the need for shore power.

Demand uncertainty

Respondents highlighted that the business case would be stronger and demand would be higher for ports which service the same vessels on a regular schedule such as ferry routes, regular RoRo cargo, workboats and Crew Transfer Vessels. Stakeholders felt that whilst large cruise and container ships were most likely to be shore power ready, the demand from operators would still be low. One respondent highlighted that only 15% of container ships were shore power ready in 2020.

High capital (CapEx) and operational (OpEx) costs

High capital and operational costs were outlined as one of the biggest barriers to the uptake of shore power as raised by 62% of respondents. The following reasons were provided:

• millions required for electricity network upgrades, especially for over 50Hz power for larger vessels
• new electricity substations
• onsite renewable generation
• the need for variable frequencies and voltage - respondents highlighted that whilst a small 16, 32 or 64 amp size of shore power connection for charging installation for smaller vessels is cost effective and high in demand (under £10,000), 125-250 amp connections charging larger vessels are less in demand and more expensive to install and charge
• transformer infrastructure costs to vary energy provision to cater for all potential vessels - the international nature of cruise and cargo would mean 2 voltage levels and 2 frequencies are needed, requiring a converter
• multiple shore power installations at each port would be required - this could include infrastructure costs like frequency converters, civil works, and cabling
• expensive retrofitting and training for ship owners
• lack of standardisation across shore power inputs as there are lots of different vessels that may require different connections - respondents also raised the myriad forms of vessel types, purpose and use which reflect a diversity for which electrification may struggle to cater

High electricity prices

Most respondents highlighted the high cost of electricity as a significant barrier in comparison to the lower cost for alternatives of marine gas oil and diesel. Respondents also felt the additional taxes on electricity compared to marine gas oil disadvantaged the uptake of shore power.

Energy grid constraints

National and local constraints in energy supply was raised by 68% of respondents as one of the biggest barriers to the uptake of shore power. Respondents highlighted that most large vessels required 60Hz of power, however the UK energy grid only operates at 50Hz, necessitating a frequency conversion. The current method for upgrading energy networks was also raised for being expensive and time consuming, calling for a faster, more responsive system for both generators and users.

Local energy constraints were highlighted as a particular challenge for ports in the south of England who are unable to generate energy locally due to local planning rules. A number of respondents also felt population density in urban areas creates additional electricity network demands which has the potential for exacerbating network capacity constraint.

Quick charging technology not available

A few respondents mentioned that vessels such as ferries have quick turnaround times which can render shore power unworkable for certain routes, such as the short straits as it can take a while to connect. For example, some ferries  were listed as an example of having 45-minute turnaround times, while it takes 15 minutes to plug shore power in and 15 minutes to unplug.

Port electricity charges

A few respondents highlighted the mistrust between shipowners and ports regarding electricity prices as a concern for the uptake of shore power. Currently, ports are expected to incur capacity or availability charges from the operators of the distribution network for ensuring that the agreed power capacity will always be available. Ports are charged with a standing charge fee even if the connections are not used frequently.

Cultural barriers - distribution network operators (DNO)

A few respondents stated that successful shore power projects on the continent have been delivered through strong collaboration between ship and port operators, and electricity companies. However, there has been less engagement between these groups in the UK. In particular, port operators had repeatedly cited difficulties and delays in engaging with DNOs regarding grid connection issues and there are low levels of engagement where ports are not already connected to the grid.

Respondents suggested benefits for the uptake of shore power for port operators and ship operators. The following is a summary of the key incentives respondents raised for shore power uptake on port operators, ship operators and ports.

Port operators

Reduced emissions and improvements in the air quality of their area. Respondents stated that as most of the UK ports are located nearby residential areas, any such action will promote a greener profile to the local community, which they have stronger connections to, compared to ship owners and operators.

As vessels will become greener, respondents stated it will improve ports’ environmental, social and governance scores, and they will have easier access to funding. Also, ports would be able to become part of a wider energy hub and have an energy system approach.

Ship operators and owners

Respondents expressed that shore power could attract certain new customers who have stated that they want to use only net-zero operators after 2040.

Shore power would pave the way to reach zero emissions at berth and produce fuel savings proportionate to the time spent at berth.

Shore power would facilitate compliance with the International Maritime Organisation’s (IMO) carbon intensity indicators framework.

Respondents felt shore power would attract a higher skilled workforce as staff will be required to know how to use shore power safely.

Overall incentives for all parties

Respondents felt that all parties would be able to reach national and international emission reduction targets.

Shore power would incentivise job creation across the industry.

Summary of responses of what is needed to accelerate shore power

Exploring the potential for the government to adopt a coordinating function in relation to the uptake of shore power

Questions 6 and 7

Do you think government coordinated guidance would be a helpful tool for ports and other operators to navigate the complexity of shore power projects? If so, which topics should be included to maximise the value of such a document?

In your opinion, how could the government’s coordinating function be deployed to accelerate collaboration across the maritime sector to facilitate shore power projects? Can you please provide examples?

An industry-led Task and Finish Group, in partnership with the Clean Maritime Council, proposed potential solutions to address the barriers for the uptake of shore power mentioned above. One of the proposals they suggested proposed exploring the potential for the government to adopt a stronger coordinating function. This could include commissioning research, producing guidance for port operators on planning and energy network requirements, and facilitating collaborations across the sector as well as information and exploring other potential measures to unlock private investment. Respondents were invited to comment on potential options.

Summary of responses

Total	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	No comment
34	28	1	4	1

Whilst 82% of respondents agreed that a coordinating function would be useful, there was not much consensus on what this could look like, but respondents did provide a range of suggestions on what a coordinating role might involve.

Respondents who agreed to a coordinating function

Most respondents supported government’s role in supporting industry consortia to overcome problems and to share information.

We have summarised the responses into 5 main areas where the government could have a stronger presence in coordinating the maritime sector to increase the uptake of shore power. The suggestions from respondents are below. The coordinating function could come in different forms including, but not limited to, guidance, strategies or workshops.

Coordinating collaboration within maritime and across other sectors

The first area is related to coordinating port and vessel collaboration as vessels mistrust ports on the prices they will charge them to use shore power. The government should bring together and support groups of ports and port users in voluntary coalitions similar to the memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by the ‘Northern Range’ ports on shore power or Operation Zero.

The government should foster collaboration to remove barriers between maritime and energy sectors. Several respondents highlighted the need for guidance to ports to specifically navigate some of the big barriers for shore power uptake of which include installing the electricity infrastructure needed to accommodate shore power.

One respondent from suggested that coordinating functions should be led by the department who regulates that particular industry.

Ensuring the electricity network is capable to meet the demand

The second area can be split into 2 subcategories: the infrastructure of the network and grid capacity.

Guidance is needed to navigate the installation of new infrastructure. Guidance could include available equipment such as sub-station and cable routes or the requirements for different vessels to use shore power. To help build relationships between ports and operators, as mentioned above, the guidance could also provide clarity on the optimal payment mechanisms for electricity provided by shore power installations.

A comprehensive review is needed to map the capability of the current electric grid and demand for shore power in UK ports. Alongside this the government should coordinate a whole systems approach considering other sectors such as rail and the road sector – this is less clear where this could fall and could be included also in the government’s coordinating function that focuses on strategically planning shore power into wider maritime decarbonisation. This would ensure the network is future proof for an increased future energy demand.

Coordinate with local authorities on infrastructure planning

The third area is to help ease the installation of the necessary equipment at ports in the planning stages. It should be noted that some responses related to this area went beyond shore power and included the installation of hydrogen hubs. Therefore, this coordinating function is more general about ports rather than shore power specifically but still applicable.

A strategy is needed to overhaul port infrastructure in cooperation with local authorities. This could include streamlining the planning process to install green solutions and alternatives and broadening the scope broadening the scope of the Industrial Energy Transformation Fund (IETF) to include maritime related shore power storage infrastructure projects.

The government should work closely with local authorities to ensure priority infrastructure is being installed first. It should also join up projects, such extending the infrastructure to ports which was initially only being installed for electric vehicle charge points. This could minimise costs and reduce timeframes.

Signposting any available funding streams

The fourth area where government should have an active role in coordination is ensuring stakeholders such as ports and operators have access and information related to various funding streams. It would be helpful if the government could assist, via a scheme or similar, with reviewing business cases when stakeholders are applying for funds. If government are unable to do this, then they should direct the stakeholder to find someone who is able to assist.

Strategically planning shore power into wider maritime decarbonisation

Lastly, the fifth area is to ensure there is a roadmap, guidance or strategy clearly setting out the future of maritime in a decarbonised world. This should be completed with a view of a whole systems approach. There is fear that investment in shore power could lead to stranded assets. It is important that any publication has a clear timeline of actions stating when shipping companies must implement shore power by so ports can approximately estimate the date by which a specific demand for electricity will be requested. The publication should go further with a more general timeline to 2050 of decarbonising maritime including an explanation of the necessity of decarbonisation.

Respondents who disagreed with a coordinating function

4 respondents from a range of sectors disagreed with a coordinating function for government because there is already a significant amount of sector information available to ports, not least from a range of suppliers who can assist in project feasibility. Also, the respondents stated that as most ports are already aware of the issues involved with shore power projects, the biggest impediment is commercial viability, and this is not something guidance could address.

Other comments

There were several additional comments which were not strictly related to the government having a coordinating function. However, these comments have been summarised below.

A few respondents felt whilst guidance was important, other interventions should come alongside it, to facilitate implementation. Suggestions included assistance with installing shore power infrastructure and government funding. It was also suggested that guidance would not be sufficient without a mandate.

On the international front, stakeholders stressed the importance of using our position at the IMO to push through policies which would not only help decarbonise maritime globally but give the signposting to domestic maritime sector the direction that the UK is going in to decarbonise. For example, by introducing green corridors between UK’s main East Coast ports and EU ports similar to the Chilean Green Corridors Network would give financial certainty to industry. Having agreement at IMO level would ensure more alignment across the sector such as a common international standard on shore power may ensure that infrastructure requirements are aligned.

Question 8

Examples of innovative commercial finance models that might help de-risk port investment in shore power infrastructure. Please include as much detail as possible.

Innovative commercial finance models were outlined as a potential option in unlocking private investment, by providing ports with greater certainty when deciding to invest in shore power infrastructure. The call for evidence suggested that these models might play a role in offsetting uncertainties in vessel demand for shore power infrastructure. Government invited views on how such measures could be structured.

Summary of responses

4 respondents provided views on innovative commercial finance models involving the following conditions:

• a model which integrates electric vehicle charging to and from ports, the selling of electricity to ships and the blending and supply of on shore local generation and storage

• a co-ownership model where a shore power infrastructure development and ownership are outsourced to a third party, who the port then pays for usage

• a model including tax exemptions for shore-power to reduce the gap between grid electricity and ship’ fuel electricity, and capital grant funding

• a model including the following financial incentives:

  • energy performance contracting (EPC) whereby energy companies provide electricity in the form of ‘pay as you go’. Some respondents suggested that as shore power will deliver energy efficiency, those savings could be “harvested” from the investor

  • Green Bonds which would provide bonus features for any positive environmental outcomes

Exploring the potential of government mandates through regulation

Questions 9 to 15

Do you think that any mandate on vessels to use shore power while at berth in the UK should be accompanied by a mandate on ports to install the related shore power infrastructure?

In your view, what would the impacts of a mandate on vessels to use shore power while at berth be on (a) ship owners (b) ship operators (c) UK ports and (d) the wider UK economy?

Do you have any other views on the potential implications of Government mandates, or any other regulatory intervention, to support the take-up of shore power? Please include evidence where possible, including references to international case studies where relevant.

The industry-led Task and Finish Group on shore power explored the option of government imposing regulatory requirements on ports and shipping operators. The group suggested that a mandate could provide policy clarity while helping solve the issues of failures of coordination between ports and ship operators as well as the split incentives to invest between charterers and ship owners. A range of potential interventions were set out (above) to identify the impacts of implementing these measures for ports and vessel operators. Government invited views on the interventions.

Summary of responses

Total	Agree to both	Disagree to both	Agree to mandate ports only	Agree to alternative option	No comment
34	13	6	1	9	5

Respondents who agreed to a shore power mandate on both vessels and ports

Overall, 38% of respondents agreed to a shore power mandate on both vessels and ports. One respondent agreed a mandate should be applied to ports only. Of the 13 respondents who agreed to a mandate on both, 5 respondents suggested individual approaches which included the following:

1. A mandate that is phased in.

2. A mandate with a clear target date.

3. Support for a mandate only on those vessels that are in berth for at least 2 hours at a time as those who spend less time cannot use shore power.

4. Imposing a mandate on both vessels and ports but only for larger, busier, and more heavy polluting ports, with a cut off on average emissions or gross tonnage of vessel.

5. The UK advocating for international standards on shore power before national legislation.

The main arguments offered to support a mandate on both vessels and ports were that it would:

• offer big market potential and provide industry with greater certainty
• provide equal treatment for both ports and vessels, thereby removing the risk of stranded asset
• provide an economically and environmentally strong solution for the long term even if short term return of investment is minimal
• align with EU’s Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation (AFIR), article 9
• futureproof jobs in the construction and supply chain sectors
• attract customers with environmental concerns and companies with green policies including global retailers and other multinational companies, such as Amazon
• facilitate wider innovations in the form of smart grids or new storage solutions

Respondents who disagreed with a shore power mandate on both vessels and ports

18% of respondents disagreed with a shore power mandate on ports and vessels, with 2 respondents strongly disagreeing.

The main arguments offered to support this view were that it would present systematic barriers if implemented at scale due to a number of significant challenges including high electricity prices, infrastructure challenges, need to upgrade the grid and the variations between ports’ energy requirements which could mean a mandate would negatively affect some ports. Some stated it would be practically unusable to enforce a mandate until the grid supply was updated and estimated that UK port sector, if electrified, would require 0.56% of the total UK’s electricity. This is based on data extracted from a port in the south of England.

Concerns around the impact it would have on the UK economy played a factor on why some respondents disagreed with the mandate being applied to both ports and vessels. There is a risk that a mandate would make UK ports less competitive as it could spark higher costs of goods which may place UK manufacturers exporting to global markets at a higher risk of losing business if there is not parity with other non-UK port operators. With a loss of business ports could be left with stranded assets.

Also, some respondents felt that as many berths are multi-purpose, planning shore power needs would be incredibly difficult. On the vessel side mandate criteria for vessels would be difficult to plan due many vessels are manufactured to a bespoke design.

Respondents who agreed to an alternative option

26% of respondents agreed to an alternative solution that would be technology neutral and combine alternative fuels. 5 respondents supported a mandate that was zero-emission capable. While this would not directly support shore power, shore power could be one technology to meet a zero-emission mandate. Respondents felt that whilst shore power is likely to play a significant role in at-berth emissions reduction, any regulatory approach should be flexible enough to allow and encourage alternative means of reducing emissions as shore power is a means, not an end.

Respondents supported this approach because a neutral approach would broaden the scope for alternative technologies and allow industry to innovate and invest according to demand and remain inclusive of emerging technological developments. It would also be flexible enough to meet the diverse needs and capabilities of both ports and vessels. A neutral approach could encourage the use of fuels produced by renewable energy from non-biological sources or incentivise hybrid battery solutions for older vessels as they are cheaper.

Exploring the potential of market-based measures

Questions 16 to 18

Are you aware of economic instruments deployed internationally to address emissions at berth? If so, please provide details, including their cost and environmental impacts.

In your view, how could similar economic instruments be used in the UK to address emissions at berth? What would the impacts be on (a) ship owners (b) ship operators (c) UK ports and (d) the wider UK economy?

In your view, which alternative levers, including economic instruments, would support the commercial take-up of shore power in the UK? Please provide as much detail as possible, including on potential impacts.

The industry-led Task and Finish Group offered suggestions referring to the potential of market-based measures, as a form of an economic instrument to support the uptake of shore power. It was suggested that these could play a valuable role in enabling the efficient achievement of targets and supporting the transition to zero emission shipping. As they are very context specific, there is no single design that can easily be replicated from one context to another. Therefore, the outcomes and impacts of an economic instrument were highlighted to be very dependent on the design and context in which they are implemented. Government invited views on potential options.

Respondents outlined that government should:

• ensure the provision of stable low energy costs and the removal of additional government levies on electricity costs
• install a long run flat price for electricity to de-risk future revenue streams from any potential spike in electricity price
• remove levies including VAT, Renewables Obligation and Feed in Tariff, and discount on dues

As well as the inclusion of economic instruments to encourage the uptake of shore power nearly all respondents made some comment related to capital costs. The most common comment was the suggestion was to provide a capital fund for shore power installations to de-risk investment for ports and vessel operators.

Wider decarbonising investment could also assist with lower the cost of shore power. For example, co-investing in a national programme of green infrastructure. This could include a dedicated fund for shore power installations and electric charging points at ports and on inland waterways, including retrofitting. Specific funding pots and green finance options were mentioned including UK SHORE match funding for shore power projects, UK Export Finance and UK Infrastructure Bank – some respondents mentioned that it should be easier to have access to this in relation to installing shore power.

Another suggestion was the provision of government subsidies for ship owners’ investments into more environmentally friendly vessels, similar to Norway, and for the purchasing and building of shore power infrastructure.

Next steps

We thank all respondents for their contribution. We will use the evidence provided in these responses to the call for evidence to inform further policy development and a future consultation on specific proposals to support the uptake of shore power. We aim to publish this consultation later this year. Pending the results of the consultation process, we intend to announce the government response as part of the refresh of the Clean Maritime Plan in 2023.

The identification of particular suggestions within this document does not mean that DfT will necessarily take them forward. Similarly, the absence of a suggestion from this report does not mean it will not be considered.

Annex A: List of organisations that responded

ABB Limited

Aberdeen Harbour, Clean Maritime Demonstration project

Arup

Associated British Ports

British Ports Association

Carbon Neutral Energy

Carnival Cruises

CEMEX

Cruise Lines International Association

Energy Network Association

Hitachi Energy Limited

Hutchison Ports

Knowledge Transfer Network and Her Majesty’s Naval Base

Lerwick Authority

London Port Authority

Marine Zero Limited

Maritime UK

Montrose Port Authority

Peel Ports Group

Port of Dover

Port of Tyne

Portsmouth International Port

Private Individual

Schneider Electric

Shell Shetlands Islands Council

Tyndall Centre for Research

UK Chamber of Shipping

The United Kingdom Major Ports Group (UKMPG)

UK Power Network Services

University of Plymouth, Strathclyde and Southampton

Valero Energy Limited

Western Fishers’ Producers Organisation

Wightlink