Members Area

16. Onshore Power Supply

[radar_cat]

Onshore Power Supply (OPS or Cold Ironing/CI) enables ships at berth to connect to onshore electricity instead of running auxiliary engines, reducing CO₂, SOₓ, NOₓ, and noise pollution. EU Regulations 2023/1804 (AFIR) and 2023/1805 (FuelEU Maritime) mandate CI adoption by 2030 for container, cruise, and passenger vessels >5,000 GT in 189 TEN-T EU ports. Estimated investment needs: €7.4bn for port infrastructure, €25bn+ for ship retrofits; up to €80bn for broader port upgrades. While CI technology is relatively mature, the operational model through which the wide implementation of CI will be sustainable is currently missing.

Highlights

  • OPS adoption is critical to Fit-for-55 climate neutrality goals: 10% of maritime transport emissions stem from ports; 19% CO₂ and 22% SOₓ emissions from ships at berth.
  • As of 2023 only 51 EU ports (309 MW capacity) had OPS; electricity demand will triple/quadruple by 2030.
  • The OPS technology is relatively mature; some commercial options available.
  • IEEE 80005-1-2-3 technical standards ensure interoperability.
  • OPS adoption provides air quality, climate, and noise benefits for ~180 million coastal citizens in EU.

Challenges for DSOs

  • Electricity grids in ports need to be upgraded to meet the potential demand in the ports: 100+ MW in large , 10-40 MW in medium and 5-10 MW in small ports.
  • The areas of the ports are not the easiest part to supply energy (weak points of the Grids)
  • Power quality issues: Harmonic distortion (frequency converters); Switching transients (equipment of 1-20 MVA)
  • Quality of Earthing and common mode currents/voltages ➔ accelerated galvanic
  • Corrosion.
  • Stability problems.
  • Power redundancy/resilience problems.
  • Large nominal capacity of the connections vs low load factor: cruise ships use the supply typically only less than 14 hours a day).
  • Information asymmetry: DSOs often lack ship demand data, risking over/under-investment.
  • Monopoly pricing risk: CI costs may be inflated up to 10–20x actual electricity cost as ports are the sole providers to ships (contrary to EU Directive 2017/352).
  • Small/medium ports face financing barriers; island grids risk blackouts with large cruise loads
  • CAPEX for off-port upgrades (substations, lines) often unfunded.

E.DSO Considerations – Business Models*

Standard Intermediary (Helsinki, Oslo, Kiel, Kristiansand, Gothenburg, Copenhagen Hamburg, Livorno)

  • Port finances and operates OPS (with public co-funding), reselling electricity to ships.
  • Revenue recovered through markups on electricity and/or fixed operational fees.
  • Port holds strong pricing power, with limited competition in energy supply.
  • Grid operator sets technical supply parameters; coordination remains transactional.
  • Suitable for small–medium scale OPS.

Active Intermediary (Ports of Stockholm (Nynäshamn, Kapellskär and Stockholm Norvik)

  • Port fully owns and operates OPS as a Closed Distribution Network Operator.
  • Investments funded via EU grants plus environmental tariffs applied to all customers.
  • Cost recovery through grid connection fees and maintenance charges, not energy markups.
  • Close collaboration with frequent customers on investment timing and usage agreements.
  • Strong coordination with grid operator via data-sharing and cost-sharing for network upgrades.
  • Aligns with sustainability goals but consolidates ports’ control over OPS pricing and capacity.

Facilitator (Helsinki, Oslo – certain terminals)

  • Port provides OPS infrastructure, but ships contract electricity directly with suppliers.
  • Infrastructure funded either by ports (recouped via fixed connection fees) or by shipping companies.
  • Opens competition in electricity supply, aligning with 2017/352/EU Directive.
  • Reduces port’s capital burden, especially when large customers self-finance OPS terminals.
  • Ports retain influence through fixed or negotiated fees for use of facilities.
  • Enhances transparency and customer bargaining power, but complicates coordination between port, grid, and multiple suppliers.

Extension-to-Grid (Under consideration for Igoumenitsa and Rafina Ports, Greece):

  • Treat the infrastructure for OPS as grid extension.
  • DSO investing, owning & operating the distribution up to the connection points of the vessels avoids monopoly power over the power supply (on behalf of the port) and enables competitive energy supply for the customers. This is well aligned with the 2017/352/EU Regulation
  • Ensure fair, regulated tariffs.
  • DSO developing the grid also enables better harmonisation with general grid development plans (reducing coordination asymmetries), delivering the power supply capacity when the need arises.
  • Support small/island ports with grid stability measures and targeted funding.
  • Provide benefits to all stakeholders.
    • Ports benefit via RES, storage, and complementary services.
    • Ships benefit with free supplier choice and ETS compliance.

Potential use cases – HEDNO (Igoumenitsa Port & Rafina Port)

  • Strengthening local grids: The rapidly increasing electricity demand from OPS infrastructure drives targeted reinforcement of distribution networks around ports, accelerating grid modernization and capacity upgrades.
  • Accelerating RES integration: By reinforcing port-adjacent grids to meet OPS demand, ports can host and integrate more renewable energy generation—such as solar, wind, and storage—since the strengthened network can safely absorb and dispatch higher volumes of variable RES.
  • Provision of flexibility services: Although the technology is not yet mature, in the future OPS infrastructure could enable ship-to-grid flexibility services, allowing berthed vessels to provide balancing and ancillary support once standards, inverters, and regulatory frameworks evolve.

Ongoing Projects

  • Enedis (Seine Docks, Paris, Bordeaux Port, Marseille Port):
    • Responds to a connection request made by the port operator. The voltage threshold (low voltage or medium voltage) is decided based on the requested power. The cost of this connection is the same as any other connection of the same power, regardless of its use.
    • Potential network extensions are included.
    • The connection point and the metering point are located at the boundary between public and private property.
    • Downstream from this metering point, the installation belongs to the client, who is typically the port operator.
    • It is the port operator who makes the connection to the quay, and it is also them who integrates the frequency adaptation system (50/60 Hz).
    • The energy supply contract is requested by the port operator, who offers a complete service to the shipowner in need of a berth.
    • The occasion of electrifying energy supply in ports can be also used to consider electrification of other industrial assets located in the port area.

*Source: Ennis, S., Mammassis, C., Markellos, R., Prousalidis, J., Manos, A., Loukos, G., & Tracey, N. (2025). Regulatory and Business Innovation in Uncharted Waters: Mandatory Cold-Ironing (Working paper). Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia

Last update: 8 December 2025