Shore power at ports and the conditions for practical use

Identify the ships that can use the service

The IMO GreenVoyage2050 technology resource explains that ships still need electricity for ventilation, pumps, control and other functions while in port. Shore supply can replace electricity generated by auxiliary engines. Serving larger vessels with substantial demand requires dedicated infrastructure on land and on board. A port project therefore needs to consider both sides of the interface from the outset, rather than treating the berth installation as a complete service in itself.

Market assessment should begin with the vessels that call regularly. A port can discuss power demand, receiving capability and retrofit intentions with shipping lines. Total vessel calls alone do not describe the addressable market: a busy berth may still have few calls that can use shore electricity. The relevant commercial question is whether identifiable customers have the capability and operational opportunity to use the proposed installation with reasonable frequency.

Technical information should be compared before service commitments are made. Voltage, frequency, capacity and connection arrangements need to suit both sides, while vessel position at the berth affects access to the supply point. For management purposes, a documented compatibility record for the actual vessel is more useful than a general statement that electricity is available alongside. Unresolved differences should be identified early enough to inform scheduling and investment choices.

IMO’s interim guidelines on safe shore power operation address compatibility assessment, testing and designated persons in charge on both sides. Ports should incorporate this preparation into the process before arrival. Operational teams can then distinguish vessels already assessed from those needing further professional review. Service readiness should be communicated clearly to the customer so that neither a routine call nor a first connection is planned on unverified assumptions.

Assess usable hours and the complete service cost

Time alongside is not identical to time receiving shore electricity. Preparation, connection and disconnection occupy part of the available window. A useful management record should distinguish these periods from actual supply time, using operational timestamps rather than scheduled berth occupancy alone. If the cargo operation or departure plan changes, the electricity service plan should be updated as well, with the relevant teams working from the same information.

Consider an illustrative call lasting ten hours. If preparation and source-transfer activities together occupy two hours, eight hours remain for shore supply. At an average load of one megawatt during that period, the delivered energy would be eight megawatt-hours. These figures are a calculation example, not a measured port result or a standard connection allowance. A real business case requires verified operating times and demand records for its intended vessels.

The economic comparison should cover the complete shore service and the onboard generation costs that can actually be avoided. Port-side planning should include capital expenditure, maintenance, personnel and electricity charges applicable to the project. The shipping line also needs to consider vessel modifications and connection-related costs. Comparing a unit electricity price directly with a unit fuel price provides no reliable answer without accounting for energy conversion and the costs involved.

As a service design proposal, ports should explain how energy, connection work and schedule changes are charged. Agreements should also define responsibilities when equipment is unavailable or supply is interrupted. Transparent charges and a clear service commitment make it easier for a shipping line to incorporate shore power into recurring calls. They also give operational teams an agreed basis for resolving changes without renegotiating the entire arrangement at each visit.

Assess shore power through the service it can deliver. For each target vessel group, confirm compatibility, usable supply time, charges and coordination responsibilities. During operation, record successful connections, supply hours and delivered energy, alongside reasons for non-use. Installed capacity describes an input; utilisation shows whether the infrastructure creates value. A single demonstration is useful evidence of progress, but repeated service under ordinary berth schedules provides a stronger basis for expansion decisions.

Use operating evidence to guide expansion

Vietnam’s Maritime and Waterway Administration reports that the Green Ports Vietnam 2026 workshop, held at Phuoc An Port on 10 April, discussed shore power, emissions management and green finance. This demonstrates institutional and industry attention to implementation. A workshop discussion should nevertheless be distinguished from evidence that participating terminals already have an operational shore power service; the status of each project needs separate confirmation.

A staged approach could initially focus on a berth with suitable vessels, reasonably predictable calls and a shipping partner willing to coordinate. The initial operating period should demonstrate repeatable service rather than a single successful trial. Its records can then inform expansion to another berth or shipping service. Clear review points help ensure that the next investment responds to actual use, while allowing assumptions to be revised when customer schedules change.

The European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) guidance covers project decisions, infrastructure, responsibility frameworks and operational controls. For port management, that scope suggests involving the operating team during project development. Handover information should make the service boundaries and coordination arrangements understandable to those who will use them. Equipment inventories remain necessary, but the organisation also needs a shared understanding of what can be offered and how readiness is communicated.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notes that emissions benefits depend on vessel characteristics, demand, time at berth and the electricity generation mix. Shore power also does not remove every vessel emission source that remains active. Reporting should therefore distinguish avoided auxiliary-engine emissions at the berth from emissions associated with electricity generation, and make its assessment boundary explicit rather than describe the entire operation as emission-free.

For performance management, a port could track eligible calls, successful connections, supply hours, delivered energy and reasons for non-use. This separates an insufficient customer base from service failures and scheduling constraints. Installed capacity remains an important input, but utilisation records show whether it is creating value. Further spending can then target a demonstrated limitation, rather than assume that higher rated power will solve every shortfall in service uptake.

Shore power becomes a useful port service when ships can connect reliably, use it for a meaningful period and anticipate the full cost. Starting with specific demand, defining responsibilities and expanding against operating evidence offers Vietnamese ports a practical pathway. It also makes environmental claims easier to assess, because the results can be linked to measured electricity use and a clearly stated emissions boundary.

By Ngoc Thanh