Shore Power Technology
Assessment at
U.S. Ports
United States
Environmental Protection
^1 Agency
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
ERA-420-R-17-004
March 2017
-------
Shore Power Technology
Assessment at U.S. Ports
Transportation and Climate Division
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared for EPA by
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
Energy & Environmental Research Associates, LLC
EPA Contract No. EP-C-11 -046
Work Assignment No. 4-06
This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or
positions. It is intended to present technical analysis of issues using data
that are currently available. The purpose in the release of such reports is to
facilitate the exchange of technical information and to inform the public of
technical developments.
and
NOTICE
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA-420-R-17-004
March 2017
-------
Shore Power Technology Assessment at U.S. Ports - Overview
Ports are major centers for movement of goods and passengers from vessels in the United States (U.S.) and are
vital to America's business competitiveness, jobs, and economic prosperity. Goods and passengers moving
through ports are projected to grow as are the size of ships due to the opening of the new Panama Canal locks in
2016 and other factors. Some vessel types, such as cruise, container, and refrigeration, can require significant
power while at berth. This power is typically generated by diesel auxiliary engines.
Emissions from vessels running auxiliary diesel engines at berth can be significant contributors to air pollution. As
port traffic grows in certain areas, air pollution may also increase. Exposure to air pollution associated with
emissions from ocean going vessels and other diesel engines at ports (including particulate matter, nitrogen oxides,
ozone, and air toxics) can contribute to significant health problems—including premature mortality, increased
hospital admissions for heart and lung disease, increased cancer risk, and increased respiratory symptoms -
especially for children, the elderly, outdoor workers, and other sensitive populations.1 Many ports and port-related
corridors are also located in areas with a high percentage of low income and minority populations who are often
disproportionately impacted by higher levels of diesel emissions.2
Shore power can be used by marine vessels to plug into the local electricity grid and turn off auxiliary engines
while at-dock. When using shore power, auxiliary systems, such as lighting, air conditioning, and crew berths use
energy from the local electrical grid. Shore power typically produces zero onsite emissions. The power generation
plant that supplies electricity to shore power applications may or may not be within the confines of the port and can
be located outside the local air shed. While shore power can reduce auxiliary engine emissions at berth, shore
power does not address emissions from boilers or other vessel sources. The assessment also describes other
alternatives that may capture emissions at berth.
This Shore Power Technology Assessment at U.S. Ports reviews the availability of shore power at ports throughout
the U.S., and characterizes the technical and operational aspects of shore power systems installed at U.S. ports.
Technical information was gathered working in partnership with ports that have installed shore power. The second
part of the assessment presents a new methodology for estimating emission reductions from shore power systems
for vessels docked and connected to shore power. A calculator tool provided with this report can be used to
estimate how harmful air pollutants could be reduced at U.S. ports through the use of shore power systems;
benefiting air quality, human health, the economy, and the environment. The estimates can be used in conjunction
with EPA's Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) program to help evaluate potential shore power projects for
grant applications, and for reporting emission reductions from grant projects
Additionally, the National Port Strateg}' Assessment (NPSA), which is a national scale assessment, was released in
September of 2016. The NPSA explored the potential of a range of available strategies, including shore power, to
1 Near Roadway Air Pollution and Health: Frequently Asked Questions, EPA, EPA-420-F-14044, August 2014.
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZvPDF.cgi/P100NFFD.PDF?Dockev=P100NFFD.PDF:
Third Report to Congress: Highlights from the Diesel Emission Reduction Program, EPA, EPA-420-R-16-004, February
2016. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZvPDF.cgi?Dockev=P100QHMK.pdf:
Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust, prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment for
EPA 2002; and
Diesel and Gasoline Engine Exhausts and Some Nitroarenes. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), World
Health Organization June 12, 2012. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/voll05/
24802, April 30, 2010. https
marine -co mpre ssion-0
epa. gov/regulations
-------
reduce port-related emissions throughout the U.S. The NPSA report can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/ports~
initiative/national-port-strategy-assessment. The NPSA and the Shore Power Technology Assessment at U.S. Ports
support EPA's Ports Initiative to improve air quality around ports.
Key Findings of the Shore Power Technology Assessment
• Shore power can be effective at significantly reducing ship pollutant emissions at dock. Under the
right circumstances when a vessel is connected to shore power, overall pollutant emissions can be reduced
by up to 98% when utilizing power from the regional electricity grid, (depending on the mix of energy
sources).
o The potential emission reduction benefits may be estimated for a particular vessel, at berth when
connected to shore power. Factors such as the amount of time actually connected, power
consumption rate, energy costs and total time at berth are described in the assessment and relate to
the overall effectiveness of shore power. Because these factors must be evaluated for each
situation, total emission reductions may vary.
o The assessment suggests that shore power may be most effective when applied at terminals and
ports with a high percentage of frequently returning vessels, typically cruise ships and container
ships.
• Application of shore power for commercial marine vessels in the United States is relatively new and
at present, not commonly available. There are currently ten ports using high voltage systems, serving
cruise, container and refrigerated ("reefer") vessels, and 6 ports using low voltage systems, serving tugs
and fishing vessels. Though the technology is relatively new in the commercial sector, shore power has
been successfully used by the U.S. Navy for decades, and is included in the Navy's Incentivized Shipboard
Energy Conservation program.
• Vessels that frequently call on the same ports and remain at berth for longer times are potentially
the best applications for shore power.
• Many ports do not have the appropriate infrastructure to connect to vessels with shore power
components. Ships can be retrofitted with vessel-side infrastructure to connect to port shore power
systems. International shore power standards are in place to make it easier for ports to select the proper
equipment.
• Barriers to shore power installation include infrastructure and electricity costs. Shore power requires
landside infrastructure, electrical grid improvements, and vessel modifications. The relative cost of using
shore power instead of a vessel's own fuel sources is more attractive when fuel costs are greater than
electricity costs.
• The Shore Power Emissions Calculator (SPEC) developed for this report can be an effective tool to
assess environmental benefits of shore power when a vessel is connected. Port authorities can use
SPEC to assess the environmental benefits of using shore power by vessel type in an area where shore
power is being considered.
o SPEC will be helpful for states and port authorities in evaluating potential benefits and in
determining whether shore power would be an appropriate means to reduce pollution at a port.
-------
o SPEC quantifies the changes in emissions when switching off engines of vessels and using shore
power systems. The tool uses vessel and activity inputs, as well as offsetting emissions of
electrical power use from shore-side power to determine emission changes for most pollutants. To
analyze the shore-side power, the tool uses emission values from EPA's Emissions & Generation
Resource Integrated Database (eGRID). The eGRID contains the environmental characteristics of
electrical power generation for almost all regions in the United States.
o While the SPEC is intended to provide consistency in estimating shore power benefits primarily
for DERA purposes, the SPEC is not appropriate for certain analyses like those performed in
support of State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and Conformity.
o SPEC offers users two ways to estimate emissions. The first is a "General Model", for users with
limited project information to estimate emissions reduction benefits through the use of a set of
default data and assumptions. The General Model may be updated with more recent information,
as available and appropriate. Secondly, a "User Input Model" is provided, which can generate
more accurate estimates through user-defined inputs for the vessel auxiliary power, load factor,
engine emission factors, and through the selection of specific electric generation facilities and their
grid emissions mix, if that information is available to users.
For more information about the Shore Power Technology Assessment
Web: www.epa.gov/ports-initiative/shore-power-technology-assessment-us-ports
Email: Tech Center@epa.gov or Arman Tanman at tanman.arman@epa.gov
-------
Contents
Glossary iv
Executive Summary 1
1.0 Introduction 2
2.0 Background 3
3.0 U.S. Shore Power Characteristics 6
3.1 Capacity 6
3.2 Design 7
3.3 Standards 8
3.4 Technical Specifications 8
3.5 Usage and Price 10
3.6 TimeatBerth 12
3.7 Costs and Benefits 13
3.8 United States Navy Shore Power Operations 13
3.9 California Air Resources Board's Experience with Shore Power 14
3.10 Future Shore Power Technologies and Proj ects 15
4.0 Existing Approaches, Methods, and Tools to Compare Shore Power and Vessel
Emissions 16
4.1 CARB (2007): Emissions Inventory Comparisons Pre- and Post-Shore Power 16
4.1.1 Inputs 16
4.1.2 Data and Assumptions 17
4.1.3 Equations 20
4.1.4 Outputs 20
4.2 Corbett and Comer (2013): The Shore Power and Diesel Emissions Model 20
4.2.1 Inputs 20
4.2.2 Data and Assumptions 21
4.2.3 Shore Power Inputs 23
4.2.4 Equations 26
5.0 Recommended Preliminary Approach and Methodology for Comparing Shore Power and
Vessel Emissions 26
5.1 Inputs 27
5.2 Data and Assumptions 27
5.2.1 Vessel Inputs 28
l
-------
5.2.2 Activity Inputs 30
5.2.3 Shore Power Inputs 30
5.3 Equations 31
5.3.1 Vessel Emissions When Operating Auxiliary Engines 31
5.3.2 Shore Power Emissions 32
5.4 Outputs 32
5.4.1 Outputs 32
6.0 Conclusions 33
References 34
Appendix A: Summary of 13 studies of the Costs and Benefits of Shore Power
Appendix B: Demonstration of Recommended Preliminary Approach and Methodology for
Comparing Shore Power and Vessel Emissions
Appendix C: Locations of Shore Power Installations at U.S. Ports
Tables
Table 1. Criteria and greenhouse gas estimated emissions reductions from using shore power
over auxiliary engines at the Port of Charleston (Corbett and Comer, 2013) 4
Table 2. United States OPS system installations by capacity and vessel type(s) served 6
Table 3. Technical specifications for OPS systems installed at U.S. ports 9
Table 4. Vessel activity and service price at OPS facilities in the U.S 10
Table 5. Vessel activity and service price at OPS facilities in the U.S 11
Table 6. Average time at berth (hrs) by port and vessel type for select U.S. ports 12
Table 7. Average time at berth by vessel type for U.S. ports 12
Table 8. Average installed auxiliary engine power and load factor by vessel type used in CARB
(2007) 17
Table 9. Auxiliary engine power, auxiliary to main engine ratio, and hotelling load factor derived
from CARB's 2005 Ocean Going Vessel Survey and used in EPA (2009) 18
Table 10. Auxiliary engine emissions factors used in CARB (2007) (g/kWh) 18
Table 11. Port-specific hotelling times used by CARB (2007) 18
Table 12. Vessel-type-specific and port-specific growth rates used by CARB (2007); 2006 base
year 19
Table 13. Shore power emissions factors used in CARB (2007) 19
Table 14. Expected hotelling emissions reductions from shore power (tons/day), as presented in
CARB (2007) 20
Table 15. Assumptions for 2,000-passenger cruise vessel characteristics and activity in 2013 and
2019 in Corbett and Comer (2013) 22
Table 16. Emissions factors (g/kWh) used to calculate 2,000-seat cruise vessel emissions in 2013
in Corbett and Comer (2013) 22
Table 17. Emissions factors (g/kWh) used to calculate 2,000-seat cruise vessel emissions in 2013
in Corbett and Comer (2013) 22
Table 18. Assumptions for 3,500-passenger cruise vessel characteristics and activity in 2019 in
Corbett and Comer (2013) 22
11
-------
Table 19. Assumptions for 3,500-passenger cruise vessel characteristics and activity in 2019 in
Corbett and Comer (2013) 23
Table 20. Electricity generation and emissions by facilities that would provide shore power, in
Corbett and Comer (2013) 24
Table 21. 2010 eGRID Annual Emissions Rates for Coastal Subregions 25
Table 22. Auxiliary engine emissions factors for medium speed engines (g/kWh), as found in
( ARB (2011) 29
Table 23. Potential 2013 emissions (metric tons) generated by the 2,000-passenger cruise vessel
while at berth using shore power compared with onboard engines operating on 1%, 0.5%, and
0.1% S fuel, respectively, in Corbett and Comer (2013) 33
Table 24. Potential 2019 emissions (metric tons) generated by a 2,000 passenger cruise vessel
and a 3,500 passenger cruise vessel while at berth using shore power compared with using
onboard engines operating on 0.1% S fuel, in Corbett and Comer (2013) 33
Table B-l. Shore power emissions calculator using eGRID regional emissions factors B-3
Table B-2. Criteria pollutant and CO2 emissions rates for selected eGRID regions with USER
ENTRY specified for the Port of Charleston. USER ENTRY values transferred from
Table 20 B-4
Table B-3. Shore power emissions calculator using facility-specific emissions factors in
Table B-2 B-5
Figures
Figure 1. Existing shore power installations at U.S. ports and U.S. EPA eGRID subregions 7
Figure 2. U.S. EPA eGRID subregions in 2010 25
Figure C-l. Locations of shore power installations in the U.S., their capacity, number of shore
power berths, and vessel calls C-l
Figure C-2. Location of U.S. ports with shore power and other U.S. ports C-2
111
-------
Glossary
A Amperes
AIS Automatic Identification System
AMEC Advanced Maritime Emission Control
At-berth When the vessel is stationary at the dock
Auxiliary engines Onboard vessel engines that provide power for ancillary systems including
loading/unloading, refrigeration, heating, cooling, etc.
Barge A non-powered marine vessel that can be pushed or pulled into position by tug boats
Berth A ship's assigned place at a dock
Bulk vessels Ships that transport bulk cargo such as coal, iron ore, etc.
Bunker fuel Fuel used in marine vessels
CARB California Air Resources Board
CH4 Methane
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
COieq Carbon dioxide equivalent
Container vessels Ships that transport containerized cargo
Cruise vessels Ships that transport passengers to various ports-of-call
ECA Emission Control Area
EERA Energy & Environmental Research Associates, LLC.
eGRID Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database
EIA Energy Information Administration
ERG Eastern Research Group
Fishing vessels Commercial fishing vessels
FRCE First Reliability Corporation - East
g Grams
HC Hydrocarbons
HFO Heavy fuel oil
Hotelling Vessel operations while stationary at the dock
hrs Hours
Hz Hertz
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
iENCON Incentivized Shipboard Energy Conservation
IMO International Maritime Organization
ISO International Organization for Standardization
kV Kilovolts
kWh Kilowatt-hours
Laker A ship that operates on the North American Great Lakes
LNG Liquefied natural gas
LPG Liquid petroleum gas
LVSC Low voltage shore connection
Main engines The vessel's propulsion engines
MDO Marine diesel oil
MGO Marine gas oil
MT Metric tons
iv
-------
MVA Mega volt-ampere
MW Megawatt
MWh Megawatt-hours
N2O Nitrous oxide
nm Nautical miles
NRT Net registered tonnage
NOx Oxides of nitrogen
NY/NJ Port of New York/New Jersey
OPS Onshore Power Supply
OTAQ Office of Transportation and Air Quality
Passenger vessels Ships that transport passengers
PM Particulate matter
PM10 Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns
PM2.5 Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns
POLA Port of Los Angeles
POLB Port of Long Beach
Quayside Attached to the dock
Reefer vessels Ships that transport refrigerated cargo
RORO Roll-on/roll-off commercial marine vessels that enable freight trucks and vehicles to
drive on and off of the vessel
ROPAX Roll-on/roll-off vessels that are also equipped to transport passengers
S Sulfur
Shore Power Shore-side electrical power that marine vessels can plug into while at berth to
power ancillary systems including on-board electrical systems, loading/unloading equipment,
refrigeration, heating, and cooling
Short ton 2,000 pounds
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
SOx sulfur oxides
SPADE Shore Power and Diesel Emissions
Tanker vessels Ships that transport bulk liquids
TEU Twenty-foot equivalent unit
Tug vessels Ships that assist larger vessels with maneuvering in port
U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. United States
UK United Kingdom
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
V Volts
Wharfinger The keeper or owner of a wharf or dock
yr Year
v
-------
Executive Summary
Shore power has the potential to reduce air pollutant emissions associated with energy
consumption from commercial marine vessels at berth. With shore power, the electricity ships
need to power their ancillary systems while at berth may be produced with fewer air pollution
emissions from land-side electricity power sources (e.g., power plants) as compared with
onboard diesel-powered auxiliary engines. However, the magnitude of potential emissions
savings depends on the fuel mix and electricity generation technology mix of the power source.
Given the potential air pollutant emissions reductions from shore power, the United States (U.S.)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is evaluating the feasibility of baseline requirements
for EPA-approved shore power systems through the Shore Power Technology Assessment
project. This project is led by Eastern Research Group (ERG) and Energy & Environmental
Research Associates, LLC (EERA) and provides the EPA Office of Transportation and Air
Quality (OTAQ) with information about the characteristics, benefits, and costs of shore power
systems. This report summarizes the findings and proposed methodology developed by the
EERA team as the Task 3 deliverable of EPA Contract No. EPC-11-046, Work Assignment No.
4-06.
This report characterizes the technical and operational aspects of shore power systems in the U.S.
and also demonstrates an approach for comparing shore power and vessel emissions while at
berth. The report demonstrates that shore power is a relatively new technology in the United
States, with most systems coming into service in the last 10 years. While high capacity shore
power systems in the U.S. have similar technical specifications and meet international operation
and safety standards, the characteristics of low capacity systems in the U.S. vary considerably.
High capacity systems are mainly used by cruise, container, and refrigerated vessels, while low
capacity systems are used by fishing and tug vessels. The time vessels spend at berth, which
affects how much shore power the vessel could potentially use, varies from port-to-port and by
vessel type, with cruise ships and roll-on/roll-off (RORO) vessels hotelling for shorter periods
than container and bulk cargo vessels.
To compare shore power and vessel emissions while at berth, this report recommends an
approach similar to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) (2007) and Corbett and Comer
(2013) as outlined in Section 5. The approach outlined here builds upon previous work as it
enables an analyst to (1) estimate the amount of air pollutants that would be emitted by a vessel
operating its onboard diesel-powered auxiliary engines; (2) estimate the amount of air pollutants
that would be emitted by the regional, land-side electricity grid to provide the same amount of
power to the vessel; and (3) compare those emissions. Additionally, the model presented here
allows for fine tuning through selection of specific generation facilities, and user-defined inputs
for the grid emissions mix, vessel auxiliary power, load factor, and engine emission factors. The
approach outlined in this report can be used to estimate how harmful air pollution emissions
could be reduced at U.S. ports through the use of shore power systems, benefiting air quality,
human health, the economy, and the environment.
Despite these potential benefits, an examination of studies and reports about shoreside power in
13 individual ports suggests that the use of shore power may face a variety of implementation
barriers. Ships must have the necessary vessel-side infrastructure to connect to shore power
1
-------
systems, requiring a substantial investment. Depending on the relative costs of marine bunker
fuels and shore-side electricity, it may be less expensive to operate auxiliary engines rather than
connect to shore power. However, harmonized international standards for shore power
installations may reduce those costs by reducing uncertainty for fleet owners and operators with
respect to the vessel-side infrastructure needed to enable the ship to connect to shore power. In
addition, states and port authorities may be able to reduce costs through incentive programs.
Finally, these studies suggest that shore power may be most effective when applied at terminals
and ports with a high fraction of frequent callers, which are typically cruise ships and container
ships. For other types of ships and, in particular, for ships that call infrequently, programs should
carefully consider the costs of obtaining and maintaining the equipment, both on ships and on
shore.
Under the right conditions, shore power can be effective at reducing ship NOx, PM2.5 and CO2
emissions. The modeling tools set out in this study will be helpful to states and port authorities in
evaluating and designing shore side power programs.
1.0 Introduction
The Shore Power Technology Assessment (Assessment) is a project led by ERG and EERA to
provide the EPA OTAQ with information about shore power systems, including their
characteristics, emissions benefits, and costs. This report characterizes the technical and
operational aspects of shore power systems in the U.S., demonstrates an approach for comparing
shore power and vessel emissions while at berth, and summarizes the experience of 13 ports
shore side power programs. The U.S. EPA is evaluating the technical feasibility of baseline
requirements for EPA-approved shore power systems; this report supports that evaluation.
The Assessment was broken down into three tasks:
• Task 1: Compile shore power information
• Task 2: Develop a preliminary approach or methodology to calculate ship emissions
reductions from shore power
• Task 3: Produce a shore power report that characterizes shore power systems in the U.S.
and demonstrates a preliminary approach or methodology to calculate ship emissions
reductions from shore power
EERA delivered this report to EPA to fulfill Task 3 under EPA Contract No. EPC-11-046, Work
Assignment No. 4-06. This report is comprised of six sections. Section 1 introduces the
Assessment project. Section 2 provides a brief background on shore power and its potential
emissions reduction benefits for at-berth vessels. Section 3 evaluates the characteristics of
existing shore power systems in the U.S. Section 4 reviews existing approaches to compare shore
power and vessel emissions while at berth. Section 5 describes a recommended preliminary
approach for comparing shore power and vessel emissions while at berth. Section 6 presents
some conclusions.
2
-------
There are three appendices to this report. Appendix A summarizes a set of reports that provide
information on shore side power programs at 13 ports, including environmental benefits and
costs of those programs. Appendix B provides a demonstration of the recommended preliminary
approach and methodology for comparing shore power and vessel emissions as outlined in
Section 5 of this report. Appendix C contains maps showing the locations of shore power
installations at U.S. ports.
2.0 Background
Ports are the main gateway for U.S. trade and are essential to the economies of many cities and
regions nationwide. In recent years, there has been a growing emphasis on the globalization of
trade and the transportation infrastructure needed to support it. The EPA's OTAQ recognizes the
economic and environmental significance of the U.S. port industry sector and is developing a
comprehensive Ports Initiative to explore and identify ways to incentivize and evaluate
technologies and strategies to reduce emissions at ports. One way to reduce emissions at ports is
using "shore power" technology. Shore power allows ships to "plug into" electrical power
sources on shore. Turning off ship auxiliary engines at berth would significantly reduce ship
diesel emissions, but these emission savings must be compared to the emissions generated by the
land electrical grid.
More specifically, the basis for emissions reduction claims when using shore power stems from
the potential to produce the electricity ships need to power their ancillary systems with fewer air
pollution emissions from land-side electricity power sources (e.g., power plants) as compared
with onboard diesel-powered auxiliary engines. The potential emissions savings will depend on
the fuel and electricity generation technology mix of the power source.
Typically shore power systems are supplied by the regional electricity grid. Thus, the emissions
associated with producing electricity for shore power will vary depending on the relative shares
of zero/low-emission sources (e.g., hydro, wind, solar, nuclear) and higher emission sources
(e.g., coal- and natural gas-fired power plants). The relative shares of fuel sources can change
over time (and even vary hour-to-hour depending on electricity demand). Shore power
proponents note that as the electricity grid becomes cleaner and more efficient, the potential
emissions reductions compared to auxiliary engines will grow. However, the cost of shore power
electric generation and delivery, for both the vessels and the terminal, can be substantial.
The emissions reduction benefits of shore power have been estimated or reported by a number of
organizations and researchers. For example, CARB (2007) estimated that their At-Berth
Regulation, which is designed to reduce air emissions from diesel auxiliary engines on container
ships, passenger ships, and refrigerated-cargo ships while at-berth ("hotelling") at California
ports, would reduce localized emissions of particulate matter (PM) by 75% and oxides of
nitrogen (NOx) by 74% in 2020. These emissions reductions are expected to be achieved in one
of two ways. First, fleet operators can use the "limited engine use" compliance approach by
shutting off auxiliary engines (except for three or five hours of total operation), during 80% of
port visits in 2020 and connect to grid-supplied shore power instead. Second, fleet operators can
use the "emissions reduction option" compliance approach by reducing their fleet auxiliary
engine emissions at a port by 80%; this implies that auxiliary power would come from other,
lower emission sources (e.g., fuel cells) or through the use of emissions control technologies.
3
-------
Note that compliance requirements were 50% in 2014 and will increase to 70% in 2017 and then
80%) in 2020. CARB (2007) estimated that the At-Berth Regulation would achieve a net
reduction of 122,000-242,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) in 2020 for California ports
through the use of shore power. This is equivalent to a 38-55%> net reduction in CO2 emissions,
even after accounting for the emissions associated with producing the power from the regional
electricity grid.
Other studies also suggest the benefits of shore power A study by ENVIRON (2004) estimated
that shore power would reduce emissions of NOx and PM by more than 99% and 83-97%),
respectively, for vessels calling on the Port of Long Beach (POLB), CA. A report by Yorke
Engineering (2007) estimated that shore power could reduce emissions of NOx, CO,
hydrocarbons (HC), PM, and sulfur oxides (SOx) by approximately 80%> for cruise vessels and
nearly 97% for refrigerated vessels ("reefers") that called on the Port of San Diego, CA in 2007.
A 2013 analysis by Corbett and Comer (2013) estimated the potential emissions reductions from
shore power for at-berth cruise vessels at the Port of Charleston, SC. They found that shore
power would greatly reduce air pollution from these ships, as shown in Table 1. Emissions
reductions were estimated to be greater in 2019 as the local power company reduces the share of
coal in its electricity generation portfolio.1
Table 1. Criteria and greenhouse gas estimated emissions reductions from using shore power over auxiliary
engines at the Port of Charleston (Corbett and Comer, 2013)
Percent Reduction Using
Pollutant Shore Power
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 92%
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 98%
PM10 59%
PM2.5 66%
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 73%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 26%
Additional studies have focused on ports outside the United States. Hall (2010) estimated that
shore power would have reduced emissions from at-berth vessels in the United Kingdom in 2005
as follows: NOx (92%); CO (76%); SO2 (46%); and CO2 (25%), assuming power was drawn
from the UK's national electric grid. Chang and Wang (2012) estimated that shore power would
reduce CO2 and PM emissions by 57% and 39%, respectively, in the Port of Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Sciberras et al. (2014) estimated that shore power could reduce CO2 emissions by up to 42%,
using a RORO port in Spain as a case study.
It should be noted, particularly with respect to the U.S ports studies, that the North American
Emission Control Area (ECA) had not yet been established at the time the studies were
performed. The ECA entered into force in 2012 and resulted in the use of cleaner, low-sulfur
fuels in commercial marine vessels and will reduce NOx emissions from engines on newer-built
vessels within 200 nautical miles (nm) of the U.S. coast. Under the ECA, fuel sulfur (S) content
was limited to 1.00% S when the ECA entered into force in August 2012 and was further limited
1 The 2013 electricity grid mix was assumed to be 48% coal, 28% natural gas, 19% nuclear, 3% hydro, and 2%
biomass. The 2019 grid mix was assumed to be 33% coal, 33% natural gas, and 34% nuclear or hydro.
4
-------
to 0.10% S on 1 January 2015. Additionally, marine engines installed on vessels built on or after
1 January 2016 and operating within the EC A will be subject to stringent Tier III NOx standards.
These standards reduce NOx emissions by 80% compared with Tier I standards. Despite the
EC A, shore power is still expected to substantially reduce air pollutant emissions (including NOx
and PM) at U.S. ports because of the potential to produce electricity at even lower emissions
rates from land-based sources.
In addition, with respect to U.S. ships, auxiliary engines are subject to the federal Clean Air Act
program. Ship auxiliary engines typically fall under Category 1 (< 5L displacement per cylinder)
or Category 2 (5L to 30L displacement per cylinder), as classified by the U.S. EPA. Tier 3 and 4
exhaust emission standards put forward by EPA require Category 1 and 2 engine manufacturers
to reduce NOx, HC, and PM emissions in newer engines for US-flagged vessels (EPA, 2016).
The combination of the ECA NOx emission requirements and the federal CAA standards for
engines on U.S. ships means that auxiliary engines are getting cleaner. Therefore, the expected
and observed emissions reductions from shore power will vary depending on the fuel mix of the
electricity source. Nevertheless, shore power is expected to reduce air pollutant emissions from
at-berth vessels in nearly all cases.
The studies examined in Appendix A suggest that shore power may be an important way to
reduce in-port and near-port emissions of air pollution, benefiting air quality for communities
located near or adjacent to the port, many of which are non-attainment areas for criteria air
pollutants.2 A 2004 study commissioned by the POLB (ENVIRON, 2004) found that shore
power is most cost-effective when annual electricity consumption while hotelling is 1.8 million
kWh or more. Shore power becomes more economically attractive when bunker prices are high.
Moreover, improved air quality can improve human health and reduce environmental damages,
resulting in economic benefits from reduced medical costs and environmental remediation
expenses. The Appendix A studies show that many ports have seen reductions in criteria
pollutants of between 60% and 80%. There can also be reduced port noise benefits as auxiliary
engines are turned off. Using shore power also allows for maintenance crews to repair and
maintain machinery that might otherwise be inaccessible if the engines were running.
Shore power is a relatively new technology in the U.S., with most OPS systems coming into
service in the last 10 years. While high capacity OPS systems have similar technical
specifications and meet international standards, low capacity OPS systems vary considerably.
High capacity OPS systems are mainly used by cruise, container, and reefer vessels, while low
capacity systems are used by fishing and tug vessels. The time vessels spend at berth, which
affects how much shore power the vessel could potentially use, varies from port-to-port and by
vessel type, with cruise and RORO ships hotelling for shorter periods than container and bulk
cargo vessels.
2 A map of counties designated "nonattainment" for the Clean Air Act's National Ambient Air Quality Standards
can be found on EPA's Green Book website: http://www.epa.gov/airqualitv/greenbook/mapnpoll.html.
5
-------
3.0 U.S. Shore Power Characteristics
This section identifies and describes 15 U.S. shore power facilities, also called Onshore Power
Supply (OPS) systems. These systems are owned and managed either by the ports or by
individual terminal tenants.
3.1 Capacity
These OPS systems fall into two main categories:
• High capacity
o > 6.6 kilovolts (kV)
o Typically service large cruise, container, and reefer vessels.
• Low capacity
o 220-480 volts (V)
o Typically service smaller vessels such as fishing vessels and tugs
Table 2 summarizes existing U.S. OPS system installations by capacity and the vessel type(s)
served. The locations of these OPS systems are shown in Figure 1.
Table 2. United States OPS system installations by capacity and vessel type(s) served.
High Capacity
Cruise only 4
Cruise and Container 2
Cruise and Reefer 1
Container only 2
Reefer only 1
Subtotal 10
Low Capacity
Fishing vessels 3
Tugs 3
Subtotal 6
Total 16
6
-------
Alaska
Juneau
Cruise 11 MW
SEATTLE
Cruise 12.8 MW
BOSTON
Fishing - Capacity Not Specified
MROW
NEW BEDFORD
fling 220V - 60A/120A
SAN FRANCISCO
Cruise 12 MW
BROOKLYN
Cruise 20 MW
OAKLAND
Container 8 MW
PHILADELPHIA
Tug - Capacity Not Specified
SRMW
PORTHUENEME
Reefer - MW Not Specified
SPNO
LONG BEACH
Tug Batteries
SAN DIEGO
Cruise, Reefer 16 MW
LONG BEACH
Cruise, Container, Tanker 60 MW
Low Capacity Shorepower Ports
• Low Capacity Shorepower Ports
High Capacity Shorepower Ports
o 1 -10
O 11-20
Q 21 - 60
Approximate EPA eGrid Subregions in 2010
I I "Boundaries are representative only as they are based
I on companies and not geographic boundaries.
Esri, HERE. DeLorme, Mapmylr
TACOMA
Container - MW Not Specified
LOS ANGELES
Cruise, Container 40 MW
Figure 1. Existing shore power installations at U.S. ports and U.S. EPA eGRlD subregions.
3.2 Design
Shore power systems can be dock-mounted, containerized, or barge-mounted. Dock-mounted
systems developed by Cochran Marine have been installed at seven U.S. ports. They require
power metering and transformer equipment to be mounted on the dock and have a cable-
positioning device to help at-berth vessels connect to the system.
Containerized shore power systems are also in use. SAM Electronics and Cavotec have
developed containerized shore power solutions that are comprised of a cable reel, switchboard,
transformers, and power monitoring and control systems. Modular containerized systems allow
for flexibility in positioning the shore power connection to accommodate different loading or
berthing arrangements while reducing the need for quayside space as compared to dock-mounted
systems. However, unlike dock-mounted systems, containerized systems are not available for use
on cruise vessels due to constraints in cable handling and the locati on of the shore power socket
outlet on the lower decks.
Barge-mounted systems require little or no dockside space. These systems are self-contained
power plants that provide power for at-berth vessels. Barge-mounted systems typically use
alternative fuels or technologies such as liquefied natural gas (LNG) and fuel cells.
7
-------
3.3 Standards
All high capacity OPS installations meet IEC/ISO/IEEE 80005-1:2012 industry standards,3
mandatory for all cruise vessels (L. Farguson, Port of Halifax, personal communication,
February 6, 2015). In contrast, only some low capacity OPS installations adhere to an
international standard. The IEC/ISO/IEEE 80005-3:2014 standard4 for low voltage shore
connection (LVSC) systems for shore-to-ship connections, transformers, and associated
equipment for vessels requiring up to 1 mega volt-ampere (MVA, equivalent to 1 megawatt
(MW) at a power factor of 1) was released in December 2014. LVSC systems below 250
amperes (A) or 125 A per cable and not exceeding 300 V to ground are not covered by this
standard. Although some ports outside the U.S. have LVSC systems that adhere to the
IEC/ISO/IEEE 80005-3:2014 standard (e.g., the Port of Bergen, Norway), no U.S. OPS systems
are known to meet the standard currently.
3.4 Technical Specifications
The technical specifications for OPS systems installed at 14 U.S. ports are summarized in Table
3. These specifications were compiled from a number of different sources outlined in the Table 3
footnotes. Information is from the World Ports Climate Initiative shore power database5 unless
otherwise noted. EERA attempted to fill data gaps by reaching out to ports directly, although
some missing information persists. Nevertheless, one can see that high capacity OPS serve
cruise, container, tanker, and reefer vessels, whereas low capacity systems serve fishing and tug
vessels. All U.S. systems use 60 hertz (Hz) frequency and were installed beginning in the year
2000. High capacity systems use 6.6 kV, 11 kV, or both; low capacity systems use 220-480 V.
Average usage is reported in various ways; watt-hours, electricity cost, or days of usage.
http
//www.iso.oru/iso/catalouuc detail.htm?csnumber=53588
http
//www.iso .ore/iso/catalosue detail.htm?csnumber=64718
http
//www.oDs.wDci.nl/oDS-installed/Dorts-usiim-oDs/
8
-------
High Capacity
Table 3. Technical specifications for OPS systems installed at U.S. ports.
Vessel Types
Year of
Maximum
Frequency
Manufacturer
Port Name
using OPS
Installation
Capacity (MW)
Average Usage
(Hz)
Voltage (kV)
Juneau8
Cruise
2001
11.00
4,107 MWh
60
6.6 & 11
Cochran Marine
Seattle
Cruise
2005-2006
12.80
60
6.6 & 11
Cochran Marine
San Francisco9
Cruise
2010
12.00
6,720 MWh (2013)
60
6.6 & 11
Cochran Marine
7,182 MWh (2014)
Brooklyn
Cruise
2015
20
60
6.6 & 11
Cochran Marine
Los Angeles
Container
2004
40.00
19,560 MWh10
60
6.6
Cavotec
Cruise
Long Beach
Cruise
2011
16.00
60
6.6 & 11
Cavotec; Cochran
Container
2009
Marine
Tanker
2000
San Diego
Cruise
2010
16.00
12,871 MWh11
60
6.6 & 11
Cochran Marine
Reefer
8,004 MWh
Oakland12
Container
2012-2013
8
2 MW
60
6.6
Cavotec
Hueneme
Reefer
2014
2,411 MWh (2013)
60
Tacoma
Container
2009
60
6.6
Wood Harbinger
RORO
Seattle13
Fishing
0.096
1 week - 6 months
60
0.4
Boston14
Fishing
New Bedford15
Fishing
2011
0.0264
5-330 Days
60
0.22
connection time
-12,450 MWh
Philadelphia16
Tug
Baltimore
Tug
0.250
daily
60
0.480
Los Angeles / Long
Tug
2009
0.3402
340.2 kWh daily
60
Low Capacity
Beach
8 Juneau (2011)
9 ENVIRON (2015)
10 $4.2 million in utilities at an average electricity cost of $0.215/kWh (Port of Los Angeles (POLA), 2014)
11 Yorke Engineering (2007)
12 Personal Communication: Chris Peterson, Wharfinger, Port of Oakland
13 Personal Communication: Ellen Watson, Port of Seattle
14 https://www.massport.com/port-of-boston/maritime-properties/boston-fish-pier/
15 Personal Communication: Edward Anthes-Washburn, Port of New Bedford. Reduction in diesel consumption of -310,000 gallons annually (Appendix A). 1 gallon = -40.15 kWh
16 ICF (2009)
9
-------
3.5 Usage and Price
Vessel activity at OPS terminals in the 13 ports presented in Appendix A and the price for connecting to OPS are summarized in Table 4. Activity was determined from the most
recent publicly available information but complete information was not available for all ports, as indicated by blank cells. Cruise activity at the Ports of Juneau and Brooklyn was
determined by cross-referencing cruise schedules with lists of shore power equipped cruise vessels. Cruse OPS activity for the Port of Seattle was provided to EERA by a port
representative. The number of shore power connections at the Ports of San Francisco (ENVIRON, 2015a), Los Angeles (Starcrest, 2014c), Long Beach (Starcrest, 2014a), San
Diego (ENVIRON, 2015b), and Oakland (ENVIRON, 2013) were estimated based on the most recently available port emissions inventories. Vessel activity for the Ports of Juneau
(CLAA, 2015) and Seattle (Port of Seattle, 2015) were estimated from cruise ship schedules. Port of Hueneme calls were estimated based on the Hueneme Vessel Schedule (Port
of Hueneme, 2015). Service prices for connecting to OPS were available from various sources shown in the associated footnotes.
Table 4. Vessel activity and service price at OPS facilities in the U.S.
Capacity
Port Name
Vessel Types
using OPS
#OPS
Berths
# Unique OPS
Vessels
Annual
OPS Calls
Total Calls on OPS-
capable Berths (yr)
Service Price
High Capacity
Juneau
Cruise
2
12
213
498 (2015)
$4000-5000/day (ENVIRON, 2004)
Seattle
Cruise
2
5
97
111 (2014)
P: $0.068/kWhOP: $0.045/kWh17
San Francisco
Cruise
2
20
49
128 (2013)
Brooklyn
Cruise
1
2
1818
42 (2015)
$0.12/kWh ($0.26/kWh to deliver)
Los Angeles
Container &
Cruise
25
54
141
2014* (2013)
$150 service charge + $1.33/kW
facilities charge + $0.05910/kWh
energy charge (additional charges may
be applied - see the source)
Long Beach
Cruise
1
81
2018* (2013)
Varies - each SP terminal has its own
account and rate structure with
Southern California Edison
Container
15
125
Tanker
1
16
17 For Port of Seattle electricity rates from Seattle City Light, see http://www.seattle.gov/light/rates/ratedetails.asp. P denotes peak energy rates, OP denotes off-peak energy rates. Additional peak demand charges of
$2.02/kW, and off-peak demand charges of $0.22/kW also apply. Cruise terminal rates were assumed to fall under the High Demand General Service category for facilities with a maximum monthly demand equal
to or greater than 10,000 kW.
18 The Queen Mary 2 and the Caribbean Princess are currently listed as equipped to plug in to shore power at the Brooklyn terminal. Nycruise.com lists the two vessels as visiting the Brooklyn Terminal 18 times in
2016, up from 15 visits in 2015.
10
-------
Table 5. Vessel activity and service price at OPS facilities in the U.S.
Capacity
Port Name
Vessel Types
using OPS
#OPS
Berths
# Unique OPS
Vessels
Annual
OPS Calls
Total Calls on OPS-
capable Berths (yr)
Service Price
San Diego
Cruise
2
4
16
87 (2012)
High Capacity
Oakland
Container
14
200
commissioned19
1812* (2012)
$267 per hour20
Hueneme
Reefer
3
391*
Tacoma
Container
1
2
100
100
Seattle
Fishing
300
$0.079/kWh21
Boston
Fishing
18
$0.042/kWh22
Low Capacity
New Bedford
Fishing
50
$0.079/kWh23
Philadelphia
Tug
Baltimore
Tug
3
3
Daily
Los Angeles /
Long Beach
Tug
1
2
Daily
* Denotes total port-wide vessel calls, not specific to OPS-equipped berths or terminals.
19 See http://goo. gl/entmdD for a list of OPS commissioned vessels at the Port of Oakland.
20 http://www.portofoakland.com/maritime/shore power.aspx
21 Shore power hookups at fisherman's Wharf were assumed to fall under the Medium Standard General Service category for the City of Seattle, covering customers with a maximum monthly demand equal to or
greater than 50 kW, but less than 1,000 kW. Demand charges of $2.24/kW also apply. Note that this is the publicly offered rate and the port may have negotiated an alternate rate.
22 Assumed to fall under Rate B2 - General for customers demanding greater than 10 kW but less than 200 kW. Rate given is for June-September, demand charges of $20.22 + $15.95/kW apply along with monthly
customer charge of $18.19. See source for additional charges (https://www.eversource.co m/Content/docs/default-source/rates-tariffs/2015-ema-business-electric-rates-l.pdf?sfVrsn=6').
23 Massachusetts does not allow for organizations passing through the cost of electricity to impose additional tariffs for services rendered on top of the price of electricity. Vessels using shore power at the Port of
New Bedford pay market electricity rates, metered and monitored by the Port of New Bedford. Rate was assumed to fall under the General Annual (Gl) category for non-residential customers with load not
exceeding 100 kW. Demand charges of $4.86/kW occur over 10 kW (https://www.eversource.com/Content/docs/default-source/rates-tariffs/2Q15-ema-business-electric-rates-2.pdf? sfvrsn=6).
11
-------
3.6 Time at Berth
EERA reviewed time at berth at the Port of Long Beach, Port of New York/New Jersey,
Seattle/Tacoma, and Port of Los Angeles and found that at-berth time varies from port-to-port
and by vessel type (Table 6). Cruise and RORO vessels tend to spend the least amount of time at
berth when compared to cargo vessels. POLB reports vessel berthing times ranging from 13 to
121 hours in their Cold-Ironing Cost Effectiveness Summary (ENVIRON, 2004). At the POLB,
container vessel dwell times increased as vessel size (i.e., capacity) increased. Similarly, time at
berth for container vessels at the Port of New York/New Jersey (NY/NJ) increased from 18
hours for a 1,000 twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU) vessel, to 40 hours for a 9,000 TEU vessel
(Starcrest, 2014b), although the at-berth time was considerably lower than that of POLB. Cruise
and container dwell times at Port of Seattle/Tacoma are consistent with those observed at NY/NJ
(Starcrest, 2013).
Table 6. Average time at berth (hrs) by port and vessel type for select U.S. ports.
Vessel Type POLB NY/NJ Seattle/Tacoma POLAa
Container13 68 26 31 48
Tanker 35 29c 21 39
General Cargo 31 14 41 53
RORO 12 12 16 17
Cruise 12 10 10 10
Reefer - 8 - 27
Dry Bulk 54 35 89 70
aStarcrest (2014c); bAverage of all container vessel sizes; cChemical tanker only
ERG estimated average time at berth for all U.S. ports by vessel type for a recent, unpublished,
analysis of arrival and departure data from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE)
Entrances and Clearances dataset. The data were reported in "days at berth" and converted to
hours. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 7. Results exclude domestic (i.e., U.S.-
flag) vessel activity but still inform estimates of average vessel berthing times at U.S. ports.
Table 7. Average time at berth by vessel type for U.S. ports.
Vessel type Average time at berth (hrs)
Barge 89
Bulk Carrier 91
Bulk Carrier (Laker) 28
Container 33
Crude Oil Tanker 54
Fishing 58
General Cargo 58
LNG Tanker 30
Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) Tanker 52
Miscellaneous 37
Cruise/Passenger 27
Reefer 60
RORO 29
Supply 39
Support 75
Tanker 61
Tug 49
12
-------
Vessel type
Average time at berth (hrs)
Vehicle Carrier
33
3.7 Costs and Benefits
This study does not contain a comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits of shore side
power. However, certain observations from various studies performed for particular ports are
noteworthy. A summary of published studies examining various aspects of the economic and
environmental costs and benefits of shore power for 13 U.S. ports is included as Appendix A.
The following discussion is based on those studies.
A 2004 study commissioned by the POLB (ENVIRON, 2004) found that shore power is most
cost-effective when annual electricity consumption while hotelling is 1.8 million kWh or more,
equivalent to a cruise ship drawing 7 MW of shore power for 260 hours annually. For a smaller
vessel drawing 1.5 MW, this threshold is equivalent to 1,200 hours annually. Cost-effectiveness
for vessels operating above the 1.8 million kWh annual threshold was $9,000 - $15,000/short ton
of combined criteria pollutants (ENVIRON, 2004).
At present, shore power has not been extensively adopted outside of European and North
American ports. However, there is an increase in efforts to encourage ports throughout the world
to adopt shore side power system. In Europe, under Directive 2014/94/EU, the European
Commission mandated the installation of shore power in all ports "unless there is no demand and
the costs are disproportionate to the benefits, including environmental benefits." In Asia, the Port
of Shenzen offers subsidies for vessels switching to shore power or low-sulfur fuels while at
berth. Additionally, the Port of Shanghai has entered into an "ecopartnership" with the POLA to
facilitate sharing shore power information; Shanghai plans to offer shore power beginning in
2015.
Studies suggest that shore power becomes economically attractive when bunker fuel costs are
high relative to local, land-based, electricity prices. Maersk claims that shore power is not a cost-
effective emission reduction strategy for vessels calling at U.S. ports for short periods of time
(American Shipper, 2014). At current bunker prices, the industry argues shippers are less likely
to use shore power rather than marine gas oil (MGO) due to high up-front vessel commissioning
costs associated with shore power, the cost of purchasing the electricity while in port, and lower
cost options available such as Advanced Maritime Emission Control (AMEC) systems that scrub
exhaust gases and do not require shore power retrofits. However, if distillate oil prices rise
relative to electricity prices, then shore power may become more favorable than switching to
MGO fuel.
3.8 United States Navy Shore Power Operations
The U.S. Navy has used shore power on their large ocean going vessels for decades (where
available) and shore power is included in their Incentivized Shipboard Energy Conservation
(iENCON) program (U.S. Navy, 2015). The iENCON program mainly focuses on energy
reductions while underway, but also includes energy savings at berth. Water and electricity usage
are monitored and reported while in port and the shore power performance of each vessel is used
as part of the evaluation process for the Secretary of the Navy's Energy Award.
13
-------
The Shipboard Shore Energy Management Handbook24 shows load profiles for the USS Peleliu
during baseline (2,500 kW) and reduced load (1,600 kW) periods. The average daily electricity
consumption across 14 vessels was 35,000 kWh at a cost of $5,000 per day ($0.146/kWh).
However, not all naval vessels draw so much power. For instance, the Port of San Francisco
2013 Emissions Inventory (ENVIRON, 2015) lists five U.S. Navy vessels using shore power
while docked at Pier 70 for maintenance. The average at-berth load for these vessels was
between 497 kW and 790 kW, with dwell times ranging from eight to 192 hours. Total naval
energy use at San Francisco's Pier 70 was approximately 284,000 kWh in 2013.
The example of the US Navy's earlier adoption of shorepower can provide a relevant example
for which commercial vessel types may find adoption of shorepower most feasible. Naval vessel
power demand at dock is often a smaller fraction of total installed power than commercial
marine vessels. Naval vessels are also typically at berth for longer periods (weeks or months)
than many commercial vessels (one to three days). Longer berthing times and auxiliary demands
proportional to total installed power make shore power cost-effective from a fuel consumption
standpoint. Similar to commercial vessels, the additional cost of installing shore power
equipment on Naval vessels is offset by the difference in cost between electricity and bunker
fuels while at berth.
3.9 California Air Resources Board's Experience with Shore Power
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved the "Airborne Toxic Control Measure for
Auxiliary Diesel Engines Operated on Ocean-Going Vessels At-Berth in a California Port"
Regulation, or At-Berth Regulation, in December 2007. The At-Berth Regulation is designed to
reduce at-berth diesel auxiliary emissions from container, passenger, and refrigerated cargo
vessels at California ports. Vessel fleet operators have two options for compliance; they can turn
off auxiliary engines and connect to shore power, or they can use control technologies that
achieve equivalent emission abatement. The At-Berth Regulation is designed to include large,
frequent calling fleets. At-berth regulations apply to container and reefer fleets whose vessels
cumulatively make 25 or more annual calls at one California port or passenger fleets whose
vessels cumulatively make five or more calls to one port.
Twenty-three terminals and 63 berths at 6 ports in California are shore power-equipped. CARB
reports that of the 4,400 vessel calls to California ports in 2014, 2,750 were expected shore
power visits, reflecting the influence of California's at-berth shore power regulations. However,
CARB issued two regulatory advisories to provide certainty to fleets making good faith effort to
comply. The first advisory, issued in December 2013, addressed the implementation period of
the regulation from January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014. This advisory covered situations outside a
fleets control including berth availability, vessel OPS commissioning, OPS connection times,
and OPS installation delays. In fact, CARB reported that 34 fleets submitted requests for relief
under the 2013 advisory. The second advisory, issued March 2015, proposed a schedule for
amendments to permanently address the implementation issues, and provides regulatory certainty
until the rulemaking process concludes.
24 http://www.i-encon.com/PDF FILES/sscm handbook/SSEM Handbook.pdf
14
-------
3.10 Future Shore Power Technologies and Projects
Recently, there have been advances in developing shore power systems that operate on
alternative fuels and technologies, resulting in very clean (i.e., low- or zero-emission) OPS
systems. For instance, Sandia National Laboratories has been working with Young Brothers'
Shipping at the Port of Honolulu, HI to develop a hydrogen fuel cell-based shore power system.
The unit, which is the size of a twenty-foot container, will consist of four 30-kW fuel cells
totaling 120 kW of available shore power and it will be able to operate independent of the grid.
This fuel cell technology is currently a prototype.
Foss Maritime is currently operating two hybrid tug vessels, the Carolyn Dorothy and the
Campbell Foss at the POLB. The hybrid tugs take advantage of a combination of batteries,
generators, and main engines to achieve improved fuel economy, especially while operating at
low loads. From an emissions perspective, the tugs reduce PM by 25%, NOx by 30%, and CO2
by 30%) during operation. Battery storage on the Campbell Foss provides 240 kWh of energy and
can be charged using a bi-directional 14-kW converter. Hotelling loads for the Campbell Foss
are about 50 kW (Foss, 2011).
Liquefied natural gas is also being considered as a fuel source for OPS. For example, the Port of
Hamburg, Germany has completed technical trials of an LNG hybrid barge designed to provide
alternative power to cruise vessels. The barge, developed by Becker Marine Systems, uses gas
motors powered by LNG to provide up to 7.5 MW of power. Technical trials were successful and
commissioning of the barge began in May 2015.
Totem Ocean Trailer Express (TOTE) currently operates two container vessels, the Midnight Sun
and North Star, on their Tacoma-Anchorage trade route. The two vessels combine for 100 shore
power calls at Tacoma, WA, annually. TOTE is currently in the process of converting the
Midnight Sun and North Star to LNG fueled vessels.
Unlike some long-haul ferries in Europe, most US ferries operate across relatively short
distances, at relatively short intervals, and within limited daily service hours. As such, ferries in
most US ports are operated such that their engines are fully turned off during long periods at
dock, i.e. overnight. Therefore, US ferries are generally less ideal candidates than some
international ferry services for shore power application.
European ferries are often larger and operated on longer routes than their US counterparts. As
such, loading times tend to be longer and auxiliary engine demands greater. In the Netherlands,
Stena Line, which operates a ferry terminal at Hoek van Holland, Rotterdam, installed two shore
power berths and commissioned four ferries (2 RORO, 2 ROPAX) to operate on shore power in
201225. Stena Line's vessels plugging in to shore power at Hoek van Holland have electrical
systems that operate at 60Hz. In order to connect to the local grid, which operates at 50Hz, Stena
Line employed an 1 lkV static frequency conversion shore power system from ABB that allows
the vessel and local electrical grids to connect. Also in Europe, Cavotec developed and
implemented an automated mooring and shore power system at the Lavik and Oppedal passenger
25 httos://librarv.e.abb.com/public/69e4dc9bd3afc54acl257a2900310ac0/Case%20studv%20ferries%20-
%20Stena%20Hoek%20vari%20Ho11arid%20NL.pdf
15
-------
ferry berths in western Norway26. The automated mooring and shore power system will serve
two battery powered ferries operated by Norled between the two terminals, which each make
around 8 calls per day.
There is also a Canadian project in the Vancouver area. The Seaspan Ferries Corporation has
implemented a shore power system at their Swartz Bay Ferry Terminal, which provides a daily
commercial truck and trailer service between the mainland and Vancouver Island. Transport
Canada provided an $89,500 grant towards total project costs of $179,300. The shore power
system is anticipated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 120 tons annually at the terminal.27
China's Ministry of Transport has announced that seven terminals will begin trial
implementations of shore power, including cruise, bulk, and container terminals.28 Three vessels
will be used to test the emissions reductions and operational challenges of shore power,
including a 10,000 TEU COSCO container vessel. Chinese authorities anticipate 99% reductions
in NOx emissions, and 3-17% reductions in PM compared to vessels burning conventional HFO.
4.0 Existing Approaches, Methods, and Tools to Compare Shore Power and
Vessel Emissions
CARB and others have developed approaches, methods, and tools for comparing shore power
and vessel emissions while the vessel is at berth. This section provides a description of these
approaches, methods, and tools, beginning first with CARB and then describing how others have
conducted similar estimations.
4.1 CARB (2007): Emissions Inventory Comparisons Pre- and Post-Shore Power
In the 2007 Technical Support Document for their At-Berth Regulation, CARB (2007) estimated
expected NOx and PM emissions reductions from the regulation using a 2006 base year and
projecting to 2014 and 2020.
4.1.1 Inputs
Model inputs included:
• Vessel inputs:
o Base year vessel population
o Auxiliary engine power
o Vessel-type-specific auxiliary engine load
o Auxiliary engine emissions factors
• Activity inputs:
o Port-specific hotelling time
26 http://www.cavotec.eom/mediacentre/page/7/279/cavotec-to-supplY-the-world-s-first-combined-automated-
moo ri ng-a nd-sho re-po we r-s v ste ml
27 http://shipandbunker.com/news/am/341961-canadian-ferrv-terminal-to-get-shore-power
28 http://shipandbunker.com/news/apac/613843-china-announces-seven-terminals-to-trial-shore-
power?utm source=newsletter&utm medium=email&utm campaign=newsletter-07/13/16
16
-------
o Vessel-type-specific and port-specific growth rates
• Shore power inputs
o Shore power emissions factors
4.1.2 Data and Assumptions
4.1.2.1 Vessel Inputs
Base year vessel population. Using a California Lands Commission database, CARB estimated
that approximately 2,000 ocean-going vessels made 5,915 port calls in California ports in 2006.
Most of the port calls were from container vessels (4,960) followed by cruise ships (667) and
reefers (288).
Auxiliary engine power and vessel-type-specific auxiliary engine loadfactors. As described in
CARB (2007), the primary source of auxiliary engine power and vessel-type-specific auxiliary
engine load factors was the 2005 ARB Ocean Going Vessel Survey. ENVIRON's estimates for
auxiliary engine power for ships calling on the Port of Oakland in 2005 were also used, as well
as a limited number of auxiliary engine power data from Starcrest's vessel boarding program and
Lloyd's-Fairplay. Vessel-type-specific auxiliary engine power and load factors used by CARB
(2007) are summarized in Table 8. As an aside, the EPA (2009) used CARB's 2005 Ocean
Going Vessel Survey as the basis for developing auxiliary engine hotelling load factors for a
broader array of vessel types as part of their 2009 Proposal to designate an Emission Control
Area for nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides and particulate matter: Technical support document. This
information is presented in Table 9 for the reader's information.
Table 8. Average installed auxiliary engine power and load factor by vessel type used in CARB (2007).
Vessel Type
Size (TEU)
Avg. Installed Aux. Power (kW)
Load Factor while
Hotelling
Container
<2000
3536
18%
Container
2000-2999
5235
22%
Container
3000-3999
5794
22%
Container
4000-4999
8184
22%
Container
5000-5999
11,811
18%
Container
6000-6999
13,310
15%
Container
7000-7999
13,713
15%
Cruise
N/A
45,082a
16%
Reefer
N/A
3696
32%
a Most cruise vessels do not have auxiliary engines, instead they utilize a fraction of main engine power at berth.
17
-------
Table 9. Auxiliary engine power, auxiliary to main engine ratio, and hotelling load factor derived from
CARB's 2005 Ocean Going Vessel Survey and used in EPA (2009).
Vessel Type
Average Main
Engine Power (kW)
Average Auxiliary
Power (kW)
Auxiliary to Main
Ratio
Hotelling Load
Factor
Auto Carrier
10,700
2,850
0.266
24%
Bulk Carrier
8,000
1,776
0.222
22%
Container Ship
30,900
6,800
0.220
17%
Passenger Ship
39,600
11,000
0.278
64%
General Cargo
9,300
1,776
0.191
22%
Miscellaneous
6,250
1,680
0.269
22%
RORO
11,000
2,850
0.259
30%
Reefer
9,600
3,900
0.406
34%
Tanker
9,400
1,985
0.211
67%
Auxiliary engine emissions factors. CARB used emissions factors that are consistent with those
used in emissions inventories for the Ports of San Diego, Los Angeles, Long Beach, and
Oakland, although CARB staff made some adjustments to the SO2 and PM emissions factors for
auxiliary engines that burned heavy fuel oil (HFO) based on results of the 2005 ARB Ocean
Going Vessel Survey and a review of emissions tests and scientific literature. For the 2006
inventory, some of the auxiliary engines were assumed to operate on HFO; however for 2014
and 2020 emissions estimates, auxiliary engines were assumed to operate on 0.1% S marine
diesel oil (MDO) in compliance with a California regulation requiring the use of 0.1% S fuel in
auxiliary engines for vessels within 24 nautical miles of shore. Actual fuel S levels may be lower
than the 0.1% S standard depending on regional refinery capabilities. Auxiliary engine emissions
factors are presented in Table 10.
Table 10. Auxiliary engine emissions factors used in CARB (2007) (g/kWh).
Fuel Type
PM
NOx
S02
HC
CO
HFO
1.5
14.7
11.1
0.4
1.1
MDO
0.3
13.9
2.1
0.4
1.1
MDO (0.1%
0.25
13.9
0.4
0.4
1.1
S)
4.1.2.2 Activity Inputs
Port-specific hotelling time. Port-specific hotelling times were estimated using observed or
average hotelling times from Wharfinger data. Hotelling time by port and vessel type used by
CARB are presented in Table 11. Note that hotelling times for container vessels at POLA/POLB
are longer due to the high number of containers being unloaded and transported at POLA/POLB
ports compared to other U.S. ports.
Table 11. Port-specific hotelling times used by CARB (2007).
Port
Vessel Type
Avg. Hotelling Time (hrs)
POLA/POLB
Container
49.0
18
-------
Port
Vessel Type
Avg. Hotelling Time (hrs)
POLA/POLB
Cruise
11.2
POLA/POLB
Reefer
33.0
Oakland
Container
19.9
Hueneme
Reefer
66.9
San Diego
Cruise
12.6
San Diego
Reefer
61.6
San Francisco
Cruise
11.6
Vessel-type-specific and port-specific growth rates. CARB estimated vessel-type-specific and
port-specific auxiliary engine growth rates based on growth in net registered tonnage (NRT) by
vessel type and port from 1994-2005. CARB would have preferred to base growth rates on
changes in main engine power; however, those data were not available for many records,
whereas NRT data were available for more than 99% of records. Growth rates are presented in
Table 12.
Table 12. Vessel-type-specific and port-specific growth rates used by CARB (2007); 2006 base year.
Port
Vessel Type
2014
2020
POLA/POLB
Container
162%
234%
POLA/POLB
Cruise
136%
172%
POLA/POLB
Reefer
48%
28%
Oakland
Container
156%
218%
Hueneme
Reefer
114%
127%
San Diego
Cruise
195%
322%
San Diego
Reefer
204%
348%
San Francisco
Cruise
150%
204%
4.1.2.3 Shore Power Inputs
Shore power emissions factors. CARB estimated shore power emissions factors by assuming that
shore power electricity would be produced by natural-gas fired power plants using selective
catalytic reduction emissions control technologies. CARB only estimated reductions in NOx and
PMio due to shore power. Shore power emissions factors are presented in Table 13. CARB
estimated these emissions factors by multiplying the emissions rate of each power source by the
total amount of power to be transferred from the shore to the ships. Therefore, these emissions
factors do not factor in transmission losses, which the California Energy Commission estimates
to be from 5.4 to 6.9%;29 however, this estimate will vary at the local level depending on
transmission distance and voltage.
Table 13. Shore power emissions factors used in CARB (2007).
Pollutant
Emissions factor (g/kWh)
NOx
0.02
PMio
0.11
29 http://www.energy.ca.gov/201 lpublications/CEC-200-2011-009/CEC-200-201 l-009.pdf
19
-------
4.1.3 Equations
CARB used the following basic equation to estimate annual vessel emissions when hotelling and
using auxiliary power:
E = EF * KW * LF * Hr
Where:
E = Amount of emissions of a pollutant emitted during one period
EF = Auxiliary engine emissions factor in grams per kilowatt-hour
KW = Power of the auxiliary engine in kilowatts
LF = Vessel-type and engine-use-specific auxiliary engine load factor
Hr = Hotelling time in hours
The value of each variable changes depending on the vessel, activity, and shore power inputs
used.
4.1.4 Outputs
CARB estimated vessel-type-specific and port-specific emissions for a year 2006 baseline and
then projected emissions to 2014 and 2020. Year 2014 and 2020 emissions are estimated with
and without the implementation of the At-Berth Regulation. Expected hotelling emissions
reductions from the use of shore power under the At-Berth Regulation are presented in Table 14.
Table 14. Expected hotelling emissions reductions from shore power (tons/day), as presented in CARB (2007).
Year
NOx
PMio
2014
13.28
0.13
2020
27.76
0.50
4.2 Corbett and Comer (2013): The Shore Power and Diesel Emissions Model
In 2013, Corbett and Comer (2013) estimated the potential emissions savings from shore power
for at-berth cruise vessels at the Port of Charleston, SC for the years 2015 and 2019. They
created and used the Shore Power and Diesel Emissions (SPADE) model to conduct the analysis.
The model incorporates vessel emissions factors from CARB (2011) and EPA (2009) and
calculates shore power emissions factors based on the generation mix of the local utility that
serves the port.
4.2.1 Inputs
Model inputs included:
• Vessel inputs:
o Installed vessel engine power
o Hotelling load factor
20
-------
o Hotelling power (product of installed vessel engine power and hotelling load
factor)
o Vessel emissions factors
• Activity inputs:
o Vessel port calls per year
o Hotelling hours per port call
o Hotelling hours per year (product of vessel port calls per year and hours per port
call)
o Annual power consumption at berth (product of hotelling power and hours per
year)
• Shore power inputs:
o Electricity generation by facility (MWh)
o Emissions (SO2, NOx, PM10, PM2.5, CO, CO2) by facility
o Shore power emissions factors (quotient of total emissions and total electricity
generation)
4.2.2 Data and Assumptions
4.2.2.1 Vessel Inputs and Activity Inputs
Assumptions for vessel and activity inputs are summarized in Tables 13, 14, 15, and 16. Specific
sources for vessel assumptions are described below.
Installed vessel engine power. Corbett and Comer were interested in modeling the emissions
reduction potential of shore power for one specific 2,000-passenger cruise vessel: the Carnival
Fantasy. They used the reported installed vessel engine power for that vessel (Table 15). They
also were interested in modeling emissions from a larger, 3,500-passenger cruise vessel,
assuming that larger cruise ships would be expected to call on the port in the future. They used
installed engine power for the Carnival Dream, a 3,500-passenger vessel, as reported by
Carnival (Table 18).
Hotelling loadfactor. Instead of having separate, dedicated auxiliary engines, cruise vessels
typically use a portion of their installed engine power for hotelling. Corbett and Comer used the
passenger vessel hotelling load factor (16%) as reported in CARB (2011) (Table 15 and Table
18).
Vessel emissions factors. Corbett and Comer used emissions factors for medium speed engines as
found in CARB (2011) and EPA (2009). The emissions factors in the CARB and EPA reports
are both primarily based in earlier emissions factor estimates developed by Entec (2002). Vessel
emissions factors used in their analysis are presented in Table 16 and Table 19.
Vessel port calls per year. Vessel port calls per year were estimated for 2015 and 2019 based on
a 2011 emissions inventory that reported that the Carnival Fantasy made 68 port calls in 2011.
Corbett and Comer assumed that both the 2,000-passenger and 3,500-passenger cruise vessels
would make 68 port calls each year (Table 15 and Table 18).
21
-------
Hotelling hours per port call. Hotelling hours per port call were estimated for 2015 and 2019
based on a Trinity Consultants memorandum that estimated that cruise ships that call on the
cruise terminal at the Port of Charleston hotel for an average of 10 hours. Corbett and Comer
assumed that both the 2,000-passenger and 3,500-passenger cruise vessels would hotel for an
average of 10 hours per call (Table 15 and Table 18).
Table 15. Assumptions for 2,000-passenger cruise vessel characteristics and activity in 2013 and 2019 in
Corbett and Comer (2013).
Description
Value
Units
Installed power 42,240
Hotelling load factor 0.16
Hotelling power 6,758
Port calls per year 68
Hotelling hours per call 10
Hotelling hours per year 680
Annual power consumption at berth 4,595
kW
hotelling power/installed power
kW
port calls/yr
hr
hr/yr
MWh
Table 16. Emissions factors (g/kWh) used to calculate 2,000-seat cruise vessel emissions in 2013 in Corbett
and Comer (2013).
2013 (1% S fuel)
2013 (0.5% S fuel)
2015 (0.1% S fuel)
CO
1.10
1.10
1.10
NOx
13.9
13.9
13.9
Table 17. Emissions factors (g/kWh) used to calculate 2,000-seat cruise vessel emissions in 2013 in Corbett
and Comer (2013).
2013 (1% S fuel)
2013 (0.5% S fuel)
2015 (0.1% S fuel)
PMio
0.49
0.38
0.25
PM2.5
0.45
0.35
0.23
S02
4.24
2.12
0.42
O
O
690
690
690
Table 18. Assumptions for 3,500-passenger cruise vessel characteristics and activity in 2019 in Corbett and
Comer (2013).
Description
Value
Units
Installed power
Hotelling load factor
Hotelling power
Port calls per year
Hotelling hours per call
Hotelling hours per year
Annual power consumption at berth
63,335
0.16
10,134
68
10
680
6,890
kW
hotelling power/installed power
kW
port calls/yr
hr
hr/yr
MWh
22
-------
Table 19. Assumptions for 3,500-passenger cruise vessel characteristics and activity in 2019 in Corbett and
Comer (2013).
Pollutant
0.1% S fuel
CO
1.10
NOx
13.9
PMio
0.25
PM2.5
0.23
S02
0.40
C02
690
4.2.3 Shore Power Inputs
Electricity grids operate on a distributed basis, balancing and pooling generation from a number
of geographically distributed sources in order to provide electricity in a reliable and cost-
effective manner. The distributed nature of electricity grids means that although energy may be
delivered in one location, that energy may have been generated by a variety of sources, some of
which may be further away than other locally available sources.
Shore power connections are predictable and thus ports can coordinate with grid operators to
adjust base load energy production to conform to the increased demand from ports with shore
power connections in the region. If grid operators know which specific power plants will be used
to meet shore power demands then it is possible to assess the emissions associated with a
marginal increase in electricity production by observing the emissions factors for those specific
facilities as described below.
Electricity generation by facility. Corbett and Comer used 2011 electricity generation data for the
facilities that generate power for the local utility that service the Port of Charleston to estimate
2015 and 2019 generation. These data were available from the U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA). Corbett and Comer assumed that electricity generation was the same for
2011, 2015, and 2019. Electricity generation by facility is shown in Table 20.
Emissions by facility. Corbett and Comer used 2011 emissions data from each facility that
generated power for the utility that services the port, as reported by the South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control. Despite expected future emissions reductions
from the utility, Corbett and Comer assumed the same fuel mix as 2011 for the 2015 scenario.
This helps avoid overestimating the emissions reduction benefits of shore power. Emissions by
facility in 2011, and the calculated 2015 shore power emissions factors, are shown in Table 20.
For the 2019 scenario, Corbett and Comer adjusted the shore power emissions factors to reflect
an expected shift away from coal in favor of natural gas and nuclear in response to EPA mercury
rules for power plants. The authors assumed that electricity generated by coal and natural gas in
2019 would be produced by the "dirtiest" (i.e., most polluting) remaining coal and natural gas
plants to ensure that the emissions reduction benefits of shore power were not overestimated.
23
-------
Table 20. Electricity generation and emissions by facilities that would provide shore power, in Corbett and
Comer (2013).
Facility Name
Net Generation (MWh)
CO
(MT)
NOx
(MT)
PM10
(MT)
PM2.5
(MT)
so2
(MT)
co2
(MT)
Canadys Steam
1,558,389
883.33
2,409.91
2,070.54
1,639.68
14,180.75
1,386,546
Coit GT
870
0.28
4.92
0.05
0.05
0.12
1,045
Cope Station
2,459,909
94.96
956.24
536.26
425.90
1,428.92
2,038,986
Hagood
55,604
38.95
37.02
1.40
1.40
0.68
38,287
Hardeeville
11
0.01
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
64
Jasper County Generating Facility
5,549,564
34.69
138.48
113.09
113.09
10.31
1,955,072
McMeekin
1,204,643
152.41
1,638.15
525.12
515.25
6,548.88
1,033,022
Parr
51,659
0.55
7.72
0.09
0.09
0.18
1,717
Urquhart
2,186,990
547.99
753.73
589.02
421.50
4,279.52
1,163,511
Wateree
3,973,744
383.58
1,970.64
1,156.82
707.04
3,523.06
3,874,183
Williams
2,742,673
239.59
1,400.17
505.95
301.76
550.60
2,429,011
Neal Shoals (Hydro)
11,169
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Stevens Creek (Hydro)
53,984
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Saluda (Hydro)
41,426
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Fairfield Pumped Storage (Hydro)
(229,744)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
V C Summer (Nuclear)
7,426,232
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
27,087,123
2,376
9,317
5,498
4,125
30,523
13,921,444
2015 emissions factor (g/kWh)a
0.088
0.344
0.203
0.152
1.13
514
" To calculate emissions factor for each pollutant in grams per kilowatt hour (g/kWh), multiply the total emissions
of each pollutant by 10A6 to convert from metric tons (MT) to grams (g); then, multiply net generation by 10A3 to
convert from megawatt hours (MWh) to kilowatt hours (kWh); finally, divide total emissions (g) by total net
generation (kWh).
In the case of many electricity grids it is difficult to predict which facilities will be used to meet
electricity demand increases associated with shore power. In such instances it is possible to
consider generation within the entire grid region that the port is in. A regional approach,
described next, thus captures the range of possible electricity generation sources and estimates
grid-level emissions factors from the average annual emissions and electricity generation of
those facilities.
EPA Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID30)
EPA's eGRID is a comprehensive database detailing the environmental characteristics of
electricity generated in the U.S. Characteristics include total annual air emissions, as well as
emissions rates, net generation, and generation type system mix. These data are provided at the
level of each generation facility and are aggregated up to the state, subregional, regional, and
national levels. Regional emissions factor estimates from eGRID can be used when individual
facility responses to shore power are unknown; however, eGRID does not provide emissions
factor estimates for all criteria pollutants, omitting PM and CO. Methodology for estimating PM
30 eGRID can be used to estimate regional electricity generation fuel mix and emissions and historical data can be used to
predict future regional fuel mix and emissions. eGRID can be accessed at htto: //www, epa. go v/cleanenergy/energy-
resources/egrid/.
24
-------
and CO emissions, where emission factors are known but not included in eGRID, is shown in
Appendix B. Table 21 shows emission rates for the coastal and Great Lakes subregions shown
Figure 2.
[NEWE
NWPP
NYUP
[MROWJ
MROE
.RFCMJ
NYCW
RFCW
SRMW
.RMPAJ
SPNO
CAMX
.AZNMJ
AKMS
AKGD
This Is a representational map; many of the boundaries shown on this map are approximate because they are based on companies, not on strictly geographical boundaries.
USEPA eGRID2010 Version 1.0 December 2010
Figure 2. U.S. EPA eGRID subregions in 2010.
Table 21. 2010 eGRID Annual Emissions Rates for Coastal Subregions.
Coastal and Great Lakes Subregion Annual Region Emissions Rate (g/kWh)
eGRID
Subregion
Subregion Name
NOx
SO2
CO2
C»4
N2O
COzeq
AKGD
ASCC Alaska Grid
1.15
0.21
570.12
0.012
0.003
571.37
AKMS
ASCC Miscellaneous
2.69
0.08
203.47
0.009
0.002
204.17
CAMX
WECC California
0.18
0.08
277.07
0.013
0.003
278.18
ERCT
ERCOT All
0.30
1.02
552.56
0.008
0.006
554.70
FRCC
FRCC All
0.32
0.64
542.83
0.018
0.006
545.13
HIMS
HICC Miscellaneous
2.54
1.71
603.36
0.034
0.006
606.02
HIOA
HICC Oahu
1.13
1.82
735.68
0.045
0.010
739.78
MROE
MRO East
0.63
2.37
730.66
0.011
0.012
734.76
MROW
MRO West
0.90
1.72
696.89
0.013
0.012
700.86
NEWE
NPCC New England
0.24
0.64
327.53
0.033
0.006
330.04
NWPP
WECC Northwest
0.46
0.46
382.19
0.007
0.006
384.19
NYCW
NPCC
0.12
0.04
282.33
0.011
0.001
282.95
NY CAV estchester
NYLI
NPCC Long Island
0.43
0.25
606.06
0.037
0.005
608.28
RFCE
RFC East
0.39
0.97
454.38
0.012
0.007
456.79
25
-------
eGRID
Subregion
Subregion Name
NOx
SO2
CO2
CH4
N2O
CCheq
RFCM
RFC Michigan
0.76
2.38
739.09
0.014
0.012
743.15
RFCW
RFC West
0.63
2.26
681.97
0.008
0.011
685.63
SRMV
SERC Mississippi
0.61
0.66
467.13
0.009
0.005
468.83
Valley
SRSO
SERC South
0.51
1.62
614.22
0.010
0.009
617.37
SRVC
SERC
0.36
0.92
487.01
0.010
0.008
489.69
Virginia/Carolina
4.2.4 Equations
The equation to estimate annual vessel emissions when using auxiliary power when hotelling is
as follows:
Cj,k
Where:
VEi ik = Pj * LF: * ^ * VEFj n
l'J'k J J yr call tJ'A
VEy,yfc = Vessel emissions for pollutant z, for vessel j, in year k
P, = Total engine power in kW for vessel j
LF, = Hotelling load factor in percent of total engine power for vessel j
Cj,k = Vessel calls for vessel j in year k
Tik = Hotelling hours at berth for vessel j in year k
VEFy,* = Vessel emissions factor for pollutant z, for vessel /, in year k
The equation to estimate annual shore power emissions when hotelling is as follows:
Where:
SPEy,i = Shore power emissions for pollutant z, for vessel /, in year k
P/ = Total engine power in kW for vessel j
LF, = Hotelling load factor in percent of total engine power for vessel j
Cj,k = Vessel calls for vessel j in year k
Tik = Hotelling hours at berth for vessel j in year k
SEFa = Shore power emissions factor for pollutant z in year k
An example shorepower emissions calculation, using values employed by Corbett and Comer
from the Port of Charleston, is shown in Appendix B.
5.0 Recommended Preliminary Approach and Methodology for Comparing
Shore Power and Vessel Emissions
Developing a robust approach for calculating emissions reductions from switching off auxiliary
engines and using shore power systems requires a methodology that is flexible. This is because
potential emissions reductions from shore power will depend on a number of local and regional
factors. These include, among other things, the operating characteristics of the vessels that will
26
-------
use shore power, the types of fuels they burn, and the current and future electric energy source
mix of the shore-side electricity generation portfolio. Thus, the approach for calculating
emissions reductions from shore power must be able to incorporate changes to vessel
characteristics; marine fuel characteristics; ship-side and shore-side emissions control
technologies; and shore-side electricity generation fuel mix, among others. While many of the
model input assumptions provided by the user will be relatively certain (e.g., the number of port
calls expected over a given timeframe, the average hotelling time), others may be less certain and
the Emissions Calculator provides average fleet-wide estimates (e.g., auxiliary engine power,
auxiliary engine load factor, shore-side electric power emissions).
This section describes recommended inputs; data and assumptions; equations; and outputs that
can be used to calculate emissions reductions from switching off auxiliary engines and using
shore power systems. These recommendations are based on a review of the existing approaches,
methods, and tools described in Section 4. Step-by-step instructions to quantify emission
reductions using the recommended approach are provided using the emissions calculator in
Appendix B.
5.1 Inputs
An approach for calculating emissions reductions from shore power compared to operating
auxiliary engines will likely include the following inputs:
• Vessel inputs:
o Installed main engine power (kW)
o Auxiliary engine fraction of installed main engine power (%)
o Auxiliary engine load factor at berth, or "hotelling" (%)
o Auxiliary engine emissions factors (g/kWh)
• Activity inputs:
o Vessel port calls per year
o Hotelling hours per port call
• Shore power inputs:
o Electricity generation by facility contributing to the shore power system (MWh)
o Emissions by facility contributing to shore power system (e.g., metric tons of SO2,
NOx, PM10, PM2.5, CO, CO2)
o Shore power emissions factors (quotient of total emissions and total electricity
generation)
5.2 Data and Assumptions
For each model (equation) input, one will need to enter a value. Some assumptions will need to
be made, and some assumptions will be more certain than others. In some cases it may be
appropriate to use a range of estimates. Keep in mind that the value of each assumption may
change depending on the timeframe being modeled. If the analysis is retrospective, one can use
actual recorded data for some model (equation) inputs (e.g., vessel calls for a particular year);
however, some inputs (e.g., vessel emissions factors) will still need to be estimated. If the
analysis is prospective, one will need to make assumptions for all model inputs based on trends
in previous data for the study area or published literature. The model presented here does not
27
-------
currently incorporate vessel efficiency improvements for vessels built after 1 January 2013 as
specified by the IMO's Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI). EEDI regulations require a
minimum energy efficiency level for CMVs. Using the emissions calculator presented here, the
user may specify improvements in vessel efficiency for EEDI vessels, such as lower emission
factors for greenhouse gases. Users may need to estimate growth rates for particular variables, as
CARB (2007) did for growth in vessel activity in California ports (Table 12) for prospective or
predictive analyses. This section outlines where one can find defensible data and assumptions for
each input.
5.2.1 Vessel Inputs
5.2.1.1 Installed main engine power
Installed main engine power is often needed because installed auxiliary engine power is typically
not publicly available. As a result, auxiliary engine power is commonly estimated as a fraction of
main engine power, which is publicly available.
If one knows the specific vessels that have called or will call on the port for which the analysis of
potential emissions reductions from shore power analysis will occur, one can usually find the
vessel's name and IMO number.31 The name may be enough information to look up the vessel's
installed main engine power online. Many companies list the specifications of their vessels,
including installed main engine power, on their websites. The IMO number can be used to look
up a vessel's installed main engine power through Lloyd's PC Register of Ships or other vessel
registry databases (subscription needed). Additionally, there are websites where one can search
for vessel characteristics, such as installed main engine power, by name or IMO number. For
ships that operate on the Great Lakes, for example, installed main engine power is available
through Greenwood's Guide to Great Lakes Shipping.32 EPA is also developing a methodology
for generating ocean-going vessel emission inventories, which will aid ports in independently
constructing their own inventories.
5.2.1.2 Auxiliary engine fraction of installed main engine power
Some vessels may report auxiliary engine power in Lloyd's PC Register of Ships. Alternatively,
one may be able to access detailed auxiliary engine data from the vessel owner/operator.
However, in many cases one has to estimate the total installed power for auxiliary engines by
assuming it is some fraction of installed main engine power. This fraction varies depending on
the vessel type. The EPA (2009) and others who incorporate CARB methodologies in their work
(e.g., Corbett and Comer, 2013) have used data from Starcrest's Vessel Boarding Program to
estimate the auxiliary engine fraction of installed main engine power. Therefore, if auxiliary
engine power is not readily available, the estimated auxiliary engine fraction of installed main
engine power found in EPA (2009) and summarized in Table 9, should be used to estimate
installed auxiliary engine power.
31 The US Corps of Engineers maintains Entrance and Clearance vessel data for most major ports:
http://www.navigationdatacenter.us/data/dataclen.htm.
32 Greenwood's Guide to Great Lakes Shipping is an annual report published by Harbor House Publishers. It is
available for order online at http://www.greenwoodsguide.com/.
28
-------
5.2.1.3 Auxiliary engine load factor at berth
Vessels operate their auxiliary engines when at berth (hotelling) to generate electric power
needed to run ancillary equipment and provide heating, cooling, refrigeration, and so forth.
These engines are not usually operated at full capacity. The percentage of full capacity that the
auxiliary engine is operated at is called the "load factor." This load factor almost always needs to
be assumed, as vessels do not routinely report auxiliary engine load factor. The EPA (2009) and
others who incorporate CARB methodology into their analyses (e.g., Corbett and Comer, 2013)
have primarily used 2005 ARB Ocean Going Vessel Survey to estimate vessel-type-specific
auxiliary engine load factors. CARB also used auxiliary engine load factors from ENVIRON,
Starcrest's vessel boarding program, and Lloyd's-Fairplay. The auxiliary engine load factors
while hotelling from EPA (2009), as found in Table 9, provide reasonable values for inputs to a
model to estimate emissions reductions from shore power.
5.2.1.4 Auxiliary engine emissions factors
Auxiliary engine emissions factors are critically important to estimating the amount of air
emissions from hotelling when ships are operating their onboard auxiliary engines (as opposed to
alternative power sources, such as shore power). CARB (2007, 2011) and others (Corbett and
Comer, 2013; EPA, 2009) have based their auxiliary emissions factors on a study by Entec
(2002). These emissions factors, as summarized in Table 22, provide representative fuel type-
specific auxiliary engine emissions factors. For most estimates, the emissions factors listed next
to MDO (0.1% S) should be used. Note that the emission factors shown in Table 22 should be
applied to vessels built prior to 2011. Vessels built on or after 1 January 2011 should use the
NOx emission factors for Tier II and Tier III vessels described below.
Table 22. Auxiliary engine emissions factors for medium speed engines (g/kWh), as found in CARB (2011).
Fuel
ch4
CO
co2
NOx
PMio
pm25
sox
MDO (0.1% S)
0.09
1.10
690
13.9
0.25
0.23
0.40
MDO (0.5% S)
0.09
1.10
690
13.9
0.38
0.35
2.10
HFO
0.09
1.10
722
14.7
1.50
1.46
11.10
Vessels operating within the North American ECA will be required to operate on fuel with a
maximum S content of 0.1% as of 1 January 2015, per MARPOL Annex VI Regulation 14.
Additionally, under MARPOL Annex VI Regulation 13, Tier II standards require an approximate
20% reduction in NOx emissions compared to Tier I NOx standards for diesel engines installed
on vessels built on or after 1 January 2011. Moreover, Tier III standards require an 80%
reduction from Tier I NOx standards for vessels built on or after 1 January 2016 and operating
within an ECA. Thus, if the vessels that are calling on the port(s) being studied are newer builds,
their emissions factors for NOx, assuming they operate on 0.1% S MDO fuel, would be as
follows:
• 11.1 g/kWh NOx for vessels built on or after 1/1/2011 (Tier II)
• 2.78 g/kWh NOx for vessels built on or after 1/1/2016 and operating in an ECA (Tier III)
29
-------
5.2.2 Activity Inputs
5.2.2.1 Vessel port calls per year
Historical data on vessel port calls per year can be used in an analysis of the potential emissions
reduction benefits of shore power. One will want to obtain, at a minimum, estimated annual port
calls by vessel type (e.g., container, passenger, reefer, etc.). Some of the larger ports will have
these data on hand. Additionally, the US ACE maintains a publicly available database of
entrances and clearances for foreign vessel traffic for major U.S. ports.33 However, many
domestic port calls, which typically make up only a small percent of total calls, will be absent
from this database. The best way to estimate annual vessel port calls will vary depending on the
port that is being analyzed.
5.2.2.2 Hotelling hours per port call
Average hotelling hours per port call by vessel type is important in order to estimate power
demand for at-berth vessels. CARB (2007) used Wharfinger data in their analysis. Wharfinger
data are desirable because they represent observed hotelling times, reducing uncertainty in
estimating this variable. Average hotelling hours may also be obtained by previously conducted
emissions inventories for the port being analyzed or for a similar port. Finally, Automatic
Identification System (AIS)34 data, available from the U.S. Coast Guard and private companies,
could be used to track vessel movements to estimate hotelling times. For instance, when a vessel
arrives at a port terminal its speed will reduce to zero and when the vessel leaves the terminal, its
speed will become non-zero. The difference in the two time stamps from when the vessel arrived
at berth and stopped moving (when its speed became zero) until its departure (when its speed
became non-zero) would equal the hotelling time. This approach would not account for the time
it takes to connect the vessel to shore power while it is at berth; however, one may be able to
estimate that connection time and subtract it from the shore power hotelling time.
5.2.3 Shore Power Inputs
5.2.3.1 Electricity generation by facility
One ought to be able to identify the utility that services the port. From there, one can determine
the names of the generating facilities. Historical data on electricity generation by facility can be
obtained from the U.S. EIA and EPA's eGRID. Previous years' electricity generation by facility
can be used to estimate the current or future year generation. One could also include an
adjustment for transmission losses to reflect the additional electricity that would need to be
generated to meet shore power demand. For instance, if shore power demand was 10,000 MWh
and transmission losses were estimated at 6%, the grid would need to generate approximately
10,640 MWh of energy to meet demand (Power Demand / (1 - transmission losses)). An estimate
of annual electricity generation by facility is important because the next step is to determine air
pollutant emissions from each facility. Together, this information is used to derive shore power
33 USACE U.S. waterway entrances and clearances data can be found at their Navigation Data Center website:
http ://www. navigationdatacenter.us/data/dataclen. htm.
34 http://www.navcen.uscg. gov/?pageName=aismain
30
-------
emissions factors. Of course, if available, aggregate electricity generation estimates for the utility
that services the port would suffice, provided aggregate emissions could also be obtained.
5.2.3.2 Emissions by facility
Historical air pollutant emissions by electricity generating facility can usually be obtained from
the state agency responsible for regulating air pollution and/or protecting human health or for
select years using eGRID (although eGRID omits emissions factors for some pollutants such as
PM and CO). State air quality agencies may collect these data as part of their Clean Air Act State
Implementation Plan, or as part of their submission to EPA's National Emissions Inventory. One
can contact the appropriate state air quality agency for additional information. If these data are
not readily available (e.g., already reported on a website), one can request the relevant
information from the agency.35
Emissions by facility and electricity generation by facility are used to estimate shore power
emissions factors. Specifically, one divides the mass of total emissions of a pollutant from all
facilities that provide power to the utility by the total amount of electricity generated by all of
those facilities in a given year to estimate the emissions factor for that pollutant. Table 20 and the
footnote below it gives an example of estimating emissions factors from shore power. Again, if
one has aggregate electricity generation estimates and aggregate air pollutant emissions from
those same sources, that information can also be used to estimate shore power emissions factors.
5.3 Equations
Based on CARB's (2007) basic equation and the equation used in Corbett and Comer (2013),
some form of the following equations can be used to estimate annual vessel emissions when
using auxiliary power when hotelling as shown in Sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 below.
5.3.1 Vessel Emissions When Operating Auxiliary Engines
The equation to estimate annual vessel emissions when using auxiliary power when hotelling is
as follows:
C; k Ti k
VE; ,¦ k = ME Pi * AEF; * LR- * — * —7- * VEF;k
l>1>k J J J yr call l>J>k
Where:
VE ij,k = Vessel emissions for pollutant z, for vessel type j, in year k
MEPy = Average main engine power, in kW, for vessel type j
AEF; = Fraction of main engine power attributable to auxiliary engine power, in kW, for
vessel type j
LF, = Auxiliary engine hotelling load factor, in percent, for vessel type j
Cj,k = Vessel calls for vessel type j in year k
Tik = Hotelling hours at berth for vessel type j in year k
VEFy,* = Vessel type emissions factor for pollutant z, for vessel type /, in year k
35 These data are now available on many government websites. If necessary, one may consider consulting Freedom
of Information Act requirements for the relevant state(s) for additional access options.
31
-------
5.3.2 Shore Power Emissions
The equation to estimate annual shore power emissions when hotelling is as follows:
C: k Tj k
SPE; ,¦ k = ME Pi * AEF; *LFj*-L^*-Li- * SEF-, k
l'J'k J J J yr call l,k
Where:
SPEy,i = Shore power emissions for pollutant z, for vessel type /, in year k
MEP, = Average main engine power, in kW, for vessel type j
AEF7 = Fraction of main engine power attributable to auxiliary engine power, in kW, for
vessel type j
LF7 = Auxiliary engine hotelling load factor, in percent, for vessel type j
Cj,k = Vessel calls for vessel type j in year k
Tj,k = Hotelling hours at berth for vessel type j in year k
SEFa = Shore power emissions factor for pollutant z in year k
Alternatively, one may be able to obtain actual annual shore power demand from the port, if
available. In that case, one can simply multiply shore power energy demand by SEF a. to
estimate shore power emissions for each pollutant in a given year.
5.4 Outputs
The outputs of an approach or methodology to calculate emissions reductions from switching off
auxiliary engines and using shore power systems will need to compare actual or estimated
emissions with and without shore power. An example of this comparison can be found in Corbett
and Comer (2013). Typically, emissions of pollutants that are linked to negative human health
effects and climate change are reported. One may consider reporting on the differences in
emissions of NOx, SOx, PMio, PM2.5, CO2, CO, and HC.
In evaluating the benefits of a shore power project, it may also be important to consider the
proximity of local communities to the vessel terminal and to the electrical generating plants. For
example, if the terminal is located adjacent or near a residential area, then the benefits of shore
power from reducing nearby population exposure would be greater.
5.4.1 Outputs
Corbett and Comer (2013) report SPADE model outputs that compare the air pollution emissions
from operating a 2,000-passenger cruise vessel on shore power as compared to diesel auxiliary
power under various years and fuel S content (Table 23). They report similar results for a 2,000-
passenger and 3,500-passenger cruise vessel for the year 2019 (Table 24). Note that shore power
emissions decline by 2019 (Table 24), compared to 2013 and 2015 (Table 23). This is due to a
shift away from coal to natural gas, nuclear, and scrubbed coal-fired plants in response to EPA's
Mercury Air Toxic Standards. As a result, shore power emissions for SO2 and other pollutants
are well below vessel power emissions in 2019.
32
-------
Table 23. Potential 2013 emissions (metric tons) generated by the 2,000-passenger cruise vessel while at berth
using shore power compared with onboard engines operating on 1%, 0.5%, and 0.1% S fuel, respectively, in
Corbett and Comer (2013).
Shore Power
2013
(1% S fuel)
2013
(0.5% S fuel)
2015
(0.1% S fuel)
CO
0.40
5.06
5.06
5.06
NOx
1.58
63.9
63.9
63.9
PMio
0.93
2.25
1.75
1.15
pm25
0.70
2.07
1.61
1.06
so2
5.18
19.5
9.75
1.95
co2
2,362
3,171
3,171
3,171
Table 24. Potential 2019 emissions (metric tons) generated by a 2,000 passenger cruise vessel and a 3,500
passenger cruise vessel while at berth using shore power compared with using onboard engines operating on
0.1% S fuel, in Corbett and Comer (2013).
2,000 Passenger
3,500 Passenger
Shore Power
Vessel Power
Shore Power
Vessel Power
CO
0.16
5.06
0.24
7.58
NOx
0.80
63.9
1.20
95.8
PMio
0.48
1.15
0.72
1.72
PM2.5
0.30
1.06
0.46
1.58
S02
1.36
1.95
2.04
2.92
C02
2,033
3,171
3,049
4,755
6.0 Conclusions
This report has characterized the technical and operational aspects of shore power systems in the
U.S., summarized certain aspects of studies that looked at shore side power, and developed an
approach for comparing shore power and vessel emissions while at berth.
This approach is flexible enough to be applied to nearly any port in the U.S. and, indeed, around
the world, provided the necessary inputs can be obtained. This report advises how one can
observe or estimate these inputs. This approach can be used to estimate how harmful air
pollution emissions may be reduced at U.S. ports through the use of shore power systems and
would allow the analysis of potential human health and environmental benefits.
Finally, this report describes some of the barriers to the adoption of shore side power. The
existence of such barriers for particular programs would need to be addressed as part of a shore
side power program. Shore power can substantially reduce air pollutant emissions linked to
deleterious human health effects, environmental damage, and climate change. Despite these
benefits, the use of shore power faces a number of barriers. Depending on the relative costs of
marine bunker fuels to shore-side electricity, it may be cheaper to operate auxiliary engines
rather than connect to shore power. Additionally, fleets must have the necessary vessel-side
infrastructure to connect to shore power systems, requiring a substantial investment. These
barriers can be overcome by further research into ways of implementing or incentivizing the use
33
-------
of shore power or advanced emissions reduction technologies. Further, harmonized standards for
OPS installations can reduce uncertainty for fleet owners and operators in deciding what vessel-
side infrastructure in which to invest to enable them to connect to shore power.
References
American Shipper. (2014). Shore power disruptor? Retrieved from
http://www.americanshipper.com/Main/News/Shore_power_disruptor_57985.aspx - hide
CARB. (2007). Technical support document: Initial statment of reasons for the proposed
rulemaking - Regulations to reduce emissions from diesel auxiliary engines on ocean-
going vessels while at-berth at a California port. Sacramento, CA: California Air
Resources Board. Retrieved from
http ://www. arb. ca. gov/regact/2007/shorepwr07/shorepwr07. htm.
CARB. (2011). Initial statement of reasons for proposed rulemaking - Proposed amendments to
the regulations "fuel sulfur and other operational requirements for ocean-going vessels
within California waters and 24 nautical miles of the California baseline". Sacramento,
CA: California Air Resources Board. Retrieved from
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2011/ogvl 1/ogvl l.htm.
Chang, C.-C., & Wang, C.-M. (2012). Evaluating the effects of green port policy: Case study of
Kaohsiung harbor in Taiwan. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, 77(3), 185-189.
CLAA (2015) Cruise line agencies of Alaska: Cruise ship calendar for 2015, Juneau. Retrieved
from http://claalaska.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Juneau-JlSrU-2015.pdf
Cochran Marine. (2015). Cochran Marine: Our experience. Retrieved from
http://www.cochranmarine.com/our-experience/
Corbett, J. J., & Comer, B. (2013). Clearing the air: Would shoreside power reduce air pollution
emissions from cruise ships calling on the Port of Charleston, SC? Pittsford, NY: Energy
and Environmental Research Associates. Retrieved from
http://coastalconservationleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/EERA-Charleston-
Shoreside-Power-Report-. pdf.
Entec. (2002). Quantification of emissions from ships associated with ship movements between
ports in the European community. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pdf/chapter2_ship_emissions.pdf.
ENVIRON. (2004). Cold ironing cost effectiveness study: Volume I report. Los Angeles:
ENVIRON. Retrieved from
http://www.polb.com/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp7BlobIIIN7718.
ENVIRON. (2013). Port of Oakland 2012 seaport air emissions inventory. Prepared for Port of
Oakland. Retrieved from
http://www.portofoakland.com/pdf/environment/maqip_emissions_inventory.pdf
ENVIRON. (2015a). Port of San Francisco seaport air emissions inventory 2013. Prepared for
Port of San Francisco. Retrieved from
http://www. sfport.com/modules/showdocument.aspx? documentid=9576
ENVIRON. (2015b). Port of San Diego 2012 maritime air emissions inventory. Prepared for San
Diego Unified Port District. Retrieved from https://www.portofsandiego.org/bpc-
policies/doc_view/6325-2012-maritime-air-emissions-inventory-report.html
EPA. (2009). Proposal to designate an Emission Control Area for nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides
and particulate matter: Technical support document. (EPA-420-R-09-007). Washington,
34
-------
DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/nonroad/marine/ci/420r09007.pdf.
Foss. (2011). Campbell Foss Hybrid Marine Power System functional specification. Retrieved
from
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/aqip/demo/demo%20final%20reports/campbell_foss_hybr
id_final_report_052913 .pdf
Hall, W. J. (2010). Assessment of CO2 and priority pollutant reduction by installation of
shoreside power. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54(1), 462-467.
ICF. (2009). Tug/towboat emission reduction feasibility study: Draft final report. Prepared for
U.S. EPA.
Juneau. (2011). Juneau cruise ship docks electrical systems: Conceptual design. Retrieved from
http://www.juneau.org/harbors/documents/conceptualdesign-electricalsystems022211.pdf
Port of Hueneme. (2015). Port of Hueneme: Vessel Schedule. Retrieved from
http://www.portofhueneme.org/vesselschedule/
POLA. (2014). Comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscalyear ended June 30, 2014.
Retrieved from
http://www.portoflosangeles.org/Publications/Financial_Statement_2014.pdf
Port of Seattle. (2015). Cruise Seattle: 2015 sailing schedule. Retrieved from
https://www.portseattle.org/Cruise/Documents/2015_cruise_schedule.pdf
Starcrest. (2013). 2011 Puget Sound maritime air emissions inventory (May 2013 update).
Prepared for Puget Sound Maritime Air Forum. Retrieved from
http://www.pugetsoundmaritimeairforum.org/uploads/PV_FINAL_POT_2011_PSEI_Re
port_Update 23_May_13 scg.pdf
Starcrest. (2014a). Port of Long Beach air emissions inventory - 2013. Prepared for Port of Long
Beach. Retrieved from http://www.polb.com/environment/air/emissions.asp
Starcrest. (2014b). 2012 Multi-facility emissions inventory of cargo handling equipment, heavy-
duty diesel vehicles, railroad locomotives, and commercial marine vessels. Prepared for
the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Retrieved from
https://www.panynj.gov/about/pdf/panynj-multi-facility-ei-report_2012.pdf
Starcrest. (2014c). Inventory of air emissions for calendar year 2013: Technical report ADP#
131016-541. Preparedfor the Port of Los Angeles. Retrieved from
https://portoflosangeles.org/pdf/2013_Air_Emissions_Inventory_Full_Report.pdf
Sciberras, E. A., Zahawi, B., Atkinson, D. J., Juando, A., & Sarasquete, A. (2014). Cold ironing
and onshore generation for airborne emission reductions in ports. Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime
Environment, doi: 10.1177/1475090214532451
U.S. Navy. (2015). iENCON: Incentivized Shipboard Energy Conservation. Retrieved from
http://www.i-encon.com/reference.htm
Yorke Engineering. (2007). Port of San Diego: Cold ironing study. Prepared for the Port of San
Diego. Retrieved from
https://www.portofsandiego.org/component/docman/doc_download/672-shore-power-
cold-ironing-study.html.
35
-------
Appendix A: Summary of 13 studies of the Costs and Benefits of Shore Power
Port Name
Economic Costs and Benefits
Environmental Costs and Benefits (if
quantified)
Source Link
Juneau
Princess spent approximately $5.5 million to
construct the shore-side facilities and to retrofit
the vessels (about $500,000 each). Princess
estimates the cost of the shore power to be
approximately $1,000 per vessel day more than
the cost of running the onboard auxiliary
engines.
htto ://www. lbreoort. com/no rt/coldi
ron.Ddf
Los Angeles
$1.21 million DERA grant to install natural gas
powered shore power system at POLA (DERA
09-10)
$23.73 million in Proposition IB funding from
the state of California for development of shore
power at 10 berths
The Port of San Pedro reduced emissions by
up to 75% since 2005. "The operational
benefits are also clear. When ships at berth
plug in, maintenance and repairs can be
done on equipment not in operation, vessels
conserve fuel, and the cost of running on
board systems is lower. Noise pollution
from the engines is also eliminated."
http: //www. ship-
technologv.com/features/feature-
shore-power-green-answer-costlv-
berthing-emissions
http://www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/proi
ects-national.htm
Proposition IB:
http://www.aamd.gov/home/program
s/business/goods-movement-ships-
at-berth
Seattle
$1.49 million ARRA (2009) grant to retrofit
two vessels and add shore power
$1.4 million EPA grant to install shore power
infrastructure at the TOTE Terminal
Annual CO2 emissions cut by up to 36%
annually. Combined emissions reductions
for 36 cruise vessel calls by Princess
Cruises and Holland America Line in 2011
were 1,756 tons COieq.
Puget Sound Maritime Air
Emissions Inventory, 2012
httt>://www.t>ueetsoundmaritimeair
forum.ore/ut>loads/PV FINAL PO
T 2011 PSEI Report Update 2
3 Mav 13 sce.pdf
EPA Grant:
http://www.epa. eov/cleandiesel/pr
oi ects-national. htm
A-l
-------
Port Name
Economic Costs and Benefits
Environmental Costs and Benefits (if
quantified)
Source Link
San Diego
Smaller ships visit San Diego (SD) ports and
electricity rates are higher than POLA. Cost
effectiveness for cruise ships is $23,500/ton
NOx and for Dole (reefer) Vessels $13,700/ton
NOx. Largest contributor to the cost is the
SDG&E (electric utility) infrastructure to
power the terminals followed by electrical
infrastructure at the terminals, ship electrical
modifications, and net vessel operator energy
costs.
$2.4 million California ARB Carl Moyer grant
in 2010 for shore power at the Cruise Ship
Terminal
Port of San Die so: Cold Ironine
Studv Mav 2007
Port of San Diego 2012 Maritime
Air Emissions Inventory Report
httos ://www.Dortofsandie so. ora/bo
c-oolicics/doc view/6325-2012-
maritime-air-emissions-inventorv-
report.html
San Francisco
Electrical energy supply costs are a significant
consideration in the feasibility of shore-side
auxiliary power supply. They affect the cost-
effectiveness of the emissions control measure,
and the operating cost to the vessel and
industry on an ongoing basis. It costs the cruise
industry more to use shore-side power while at
port than shipboard generated electrical power.
The "break-even" point for this portion of the
cost is $0.05-0.10/kW-hr.
The port of San Francisco was awarded a $1
million grant from EPA to support OPS
installation
$1.9 million California ARB Carl Moyer grant
(year 8/9 funding) for Cruise Ship shore-side
power installation
Use of shore power leads to 60-80%
estimated reduction in emissions according
to ENVIRON's 2005 Shoreside Power
Feasibility Study for Cruise Ships Berthed
at Port of San Francisco.
htto://www.sf-
Dort.org/fto/uDloadedfiles/commun
itv meetines/CTEAC/info/ENVIR
ON Final Rcoort 091305 main%
20bodv Rev.odf
EPA grant:
http://www.epa. eov/reeion9/media
center/posf-dera/SF -Port-Shore-
Power.pdf
Carl Moyer Grant:
htto://www.baaamd. eov/Divisions/
Strategic-Incentives/Fundine-
Sources/Carl-Mover-Pro eram. asox
Long Beach
Average cost effectiveness of 12 selected
vessels is $69,000 per ton (combined
emissions, per Table 6-4 of that report, treated
with equal weights), and a vessel-weighted
average at $16,000/ton.
Cold ironing is cost-effective as a retrofit
from a vessel operator perspective when the
annual power consumption is 1,800,000
kWh or more. Drops to 1,500,000 kWh for
new builds to be cost-effective.
htto://www.Dolb.com/civica/fileba
nk/blobdload. asD?BlobID=7 718
A-2
-------
Port Name
Economic Costs and Benefits
Environmental Costs and Benefits (if
quantified)
Source Link
$30 million in Proposition IB funding from the
state of California for shore power
development at 12 berths ($2.5/berth)
Oakland
$12.8 million grant from Bay Area Air Quality
Management District and U.S. Maritime
Administration. Additional approximately $20
million awarded by CARB and Metropolitan
Transportation Commission/Federal Highway
Administration.
LNG emissions reductions allegedly are
equal to the typical shore power methods.
Port of Oakland added $5 million to the
port's shore power fund to reduce "the
health risk from seaport sources of diesel
emissions by 85% by 2020".
htto://www.martrans.org/docs/thes
cs/DaDoutsoalou.Ddr
Grants:
http://www.portofoakland.com/pdf
/newsroom/oressrel 319.odf
Hueneme
ARB preliminary draft report (which cannot yet
be cited for academic purposes in accordance
with the request to "do not cite" in the report)
notes that Hueneme and POLA have lower
electricity rates than Port of San Diego.
$500,000 DERA (2013) grant for Phase II
Shore Power Infrastructure Project
$4.5 million from California under Proposition
IB administered by South Coast Air Quality
Management District to fund shore power
infrastructure at three berths.
In comparing Hueneme to POLA and Port
of San Diego, ARB indicates that the
average cost-effective values for Hueneme
are the lowest, followed by San Diego, then
POLA, whose average cost-effective values
are two to three times greater than those for
Hueneme. Hueneme has the lowest cost-
effectiveness values because it has three
times the number of ships that visited often
(six visits or more) than the other two ports.
Conversely, POLA has the highest average
installations. At 2MW load, both Hueneme
and San Diego are more cost-effective than
container ships using OPS at POLA/POLB.
htto://www.arb.ca. soy/do rts/marin
evess/documents/coldironine0306/
appi.pdf
EPA Grant:
httt>://www2.et>a. eov/oorts-
initiative/fundine-oroi ects-
i mora ve-a i r-ci ua 1 it v -do rts
Boston
Mixed opinion about use of shore power for tug
and push boats. The general consensus is that it
is not feasible for tugs and tows given their
typical operating cycles. Constellation
Maritime kept tugs on shore power while
berthed. However, Constellation Maritime has
since left Port of Boston.
$400,000 DERA (2008) grant to install an
additional six shore power stations at the
Boston Fish Pier
ICF (2009) Tug/Towboat Emission
Reduction Feasibility Study. Draft
Final Report
EPA Grant:
httt>://www.et>a. eov/cleandiesel/or
oiects-national.htm
A-3
-------
Port Name
Economic Costs and Benefits
Environmental Costs and Benefits (if
quantified)
Source Link
Brooklyn
August (2011) PA/NY/NJ voted to spend $12.1
million to build a shore power station. EPA
granted another $2.9 million for the project,
and the Empire State Development Corporation
allocated $4.3 million to the project, for a total
of $19.3 million.
New York City Economic Development
Corporation and New York Power Authority
entered into an agreement to deliver electricity
to vessels at a rate of $0.12/kWh. Total energy
delivery costs are $0.26/kWh; New York City
Economic Development Corporation will cover
the difference in costs.
Expected annual emission reductions:
6.5 tons of PM
95.3 tons of NOx
1,487 tons of GHGs
EPA grants provided under
American Reinvestment and
Recovery Act (ARRA) of 2009
National Clean Diesel Funding
Assistance Program
httt>://www.et>a. eov/cleandiesel/or
oiects-national.htm
httos ://www.oanvni. eov/about/odf/
CAS Implementation Report.pdf
New Bedford
The port was awarded $1 million from the
EPA, and $540,000 from the Federal Highway
Administration's Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program to
install OPS at its commercial fishing piers.
-3,000 tons GHG avoided annually
Reduced diesel consumption of ~310,000
gallons annually from using shore power
Enviromnental costs could be interesting
here with the New Bedford Offshore Wind
Power opportunities.
httr)://www.nbedc.ors/whv-off-
shore-wind/
http://www.southcoasttoday.eom/a
rticle/20120327/News/203270332
OPS Grants:
httt>://www.et>a. eov/reeionl/suoerf
und/sites/newbedford/509390.odf
Philadelphia
Tugboat shore power has been implemented at
the Port of Philadelphia. Costs were
approximately $1 million in capital costs per
berth, unknown capital costs per tug. Total
costs also affected by the price differential
between electricity and bunker fuel.
ICF (2009) Tug/Towboat Emission
Reduction Feasibility Study. Draft
Final Report
Tacoma
Shore power at Port of Tacoma's TOTE
terminal is estimated to reduce diesel
particulate emissions by 3.4 tons annually, NOx
emissions by 24.5, CO emissions by 2.1, HC
emissions by 0.8 tons, and CO2 by over 1,360
tons annually.
50 jobs estimated to be created by the shore
power project
lUtDs://voscmitc.cDa.aov/oarm/iam
s egf.nsf/52f35d81cc937e5e85256
fb6006df28e/c80dabb8b2597dal85
257d6f0071d3 lflOoenDocument
httDs://\Yww.\YCStcoastcollaborativ
e.ore/files/erants/DERA-ARRA-
PortTacomaShorepowerFactSheet.
pdf
A-4
-------
Port Name
Economic Costs and Benefits
Environmental Costs and Benefits (if
quantified)
Source Link
$1,488,080 DERA ARRA grant from EPA
(2011), with $1,101,303 in leveraged matching
funds from TOTE and partners
Other Resources
ARB
Preliminary
Report
Preliminary Report (DO NOT CITE)
From ARB Preliminary Report 2006 - DO
NOT CITE - If all ships visiting California
ports use shore power, emissions would be
reduced by 95% from the distillate
emissions level. NOx, PM, and HC
emissions reduced by 22, 0.4, and 0.6 tons
per day, respectively, based upon 2004
distillate emissions. For all ships visiting
California three times per year, emissions
would be reduced by 70%. NOx, PM, and
HC emissions would be reduced by 17, 0.4,
and 0.5 tons per day, respectively. If ships
making six or more visits a year to a
California port were cold-ironed, the overall
emissions reduced by about 50%.
htto://www.arb.ca. soy/do rts/marin
evess/documents/coldironine0306/
cxccsiim.Ddf
A-5
-------
Appendix B: Demonstration of Recommended Preliminary Approach and
Methodology for Comparing Shore Power and Vessel Emissions
Step-by-Step Approach to Using the Shore Power Emissions Calculator
The model can calculate emissions in a general form based on generic vessels and the regional
grid mix. Additionally, the model user can supply inputs to specify vessel characteristics and
generation facilities if known. In addition to the following instructions, a Microsoft Excel®
workbook is provided that includes the supporting data in the appendix and an example
calculation of the general approach. User input is required in blue cells; model output is shown in
grey cells in the Excel® spreadsheet example.
General Model
1. Use the dropdown menu to select the eGRID Region (shown in Figure 2 and the eGRID
Region tab) in which to calculate shore power emissions.
2. Use the dropdown menu to select the Vessel Type. Nine vessel types are included, up to
36 individual vessels may be entered.
3. The Auxiliary engine Size (kW) and Load Factor fields will populate automatically.
4. Enter the Number of Annual Vessel Calls for each Vessel Type entered. Note that the
model assumes a single vessel for each vessel type selected.
5. Enter the average number of hotelling hours per vessel call.
6. Annual Energy Consumption (kWh), Vessel Power Emissions (MT), Shore Power
Emissions (MT), and Difference (MT) outputs are now available in the grey cells.
NOTE: The General Model assumes 6% power transmission losses and does not estimate
PMio, PM2.5, or CO emissions.
User Input Model
1. Use the dropdown menu to select the eGRID Region (shown in Figure 2 and the eGRID
Region tab) in which to calculate shore power emissions. The user may additionally
specify an grid emissions mix in the eGridRegion tab, in the USER ENTRY row, and
select USER ENTRY in the eGRID Region cell dropdown. Users may also specify
PM10, PM2.5, and CO emission factors in the USER ENTRY row. PM10, PM2.5, and CO
emissions will not be estimated unless specified here.
2. Emissions may also be calculated for a specific facility, using the dropdown menu for
Generation Facility. The full list of generation facilities provided in eGRID2012 is
available in the PLNT12 tab. NOTE: Leave the eGRID region column blank, if an eGRID
Region is specified, the model will not calculate emissions from a specific generation
facility
3. Use the dropdown to select the vessel type. NOTE: Auxiliary Engine Size (kw) and
Load Factor do not automatically populate in the User Input Model
4. Specify the Vessel Fuel mix. MDO 0.1% Sulphur, MDO 0.5% Sulphur, and HFO are
available. Additionally, the user may specify their own auxiliary engine emission factors
in the Vessel Fuel Emission Factors tab, and selecting USER ENTRY in the Vessel Fuel
cell dropdown
5. Enter the vessel Auxiliary Engine Size (kW)
6. Enter the vessel Load Factor (Decimal value between 0 and 1, inclusive)
B-l
-------
7. Enter the Number of Annual Vessel Calls
8. Enter the Avg. Hotel Hours/Vessel Call
9. Enter the percent Transmission Losses (Decimal value between 0 and 1. i.e. 6%
transmission losses would be entered as 0.06)
10. Annual Energy Consumption (kWh), Vessel Power Emissions (MT), Shore Power
Emissions (MT), and Difference (MT) outputs are now available in the grey cells
We apply the methods outlined in Section 5 to demonstrate how to estimate changes in emissions
of CO2, SOx, and NOx associated with switching from bunker fuels at dock to shore power. We
present two applications: first we use regional emissions factors from EPA's eGRID using the
general model approach; second, we use a combination of plant-specific, eGRID, and user-
defined emissions factors using the user input model approach.
Methodology Demonstration: General Model - eGRID Results
Table B-l compares estimated vessel and shore power emissions for container, cruise, and reefer
vessels at a high capacity OPS system. An assumption of 6% transmission losses is included in
the calculation to estimate the additional shore power energy supply required to meet vessel
power demand.
The largest emissions reductions associated with a switch to shore power were in CO2, followed
by NOx. Due to the low sulfur content of ECA-compliant MDOs (0.1% S), SOx emissions were
estimated to increase slightly with a switch to shore power in some regions that rely on coal for
large portions of their electricity generation portfolio.
B-2
-------
(MT)
(MT)
Table B-l. Shore power emissions calculator using eGRID regional emissions factors.
Vessel Power Emissions Shore Power Emissions
Emissions Calculator: High Capacity Shore Power Connection (eGRID)
Annual
Energy
Consumption
(kWh)
Difference (MT)
Example
eGRID
Region Vessel Type
Auxiliary
Engine Size
(kW)
Load
Factor
Number of
Annual
Vessel Calls
Avg. Hotel
Hours/Vessel
Call
NOx
SOx
C02
NOx
SOx
C02
NOx
SOx
C02
Northeast
RFCE
Passenger/Cruise
11000
0.64
26
10
1,947,234
27.07
0.78
1,343.59
0.81
2.00
937.87
-26.26
1.22
-405.72
Ship
RFCE
General Cargo
1776
0.22
15
35
218,221
3.03
0.09
150.57
0.09
0.22
105.10
-2.94
0.14
-45.47
RFCE
RORO
2850
0.3
20
25
454,787
6.32
0.18
313.80
0.19
0.47
219.05
-6.13
0.29
-94.76
Alaska
AKGD
ContainerShip
6800
0.17
40
10
491,915
6.84
0.20
339.42
0.60
0.11
297.28
-6.24
0.09
42.15
AKGD
Passenger/Cruise
11000
0.64
50
12
4,493,617
62.46
1.80
3,100.60
5.47
0.99
2,715.60
-56.99
0.81
385.00
Ship
Florida
FRCC
Passenger/Cruise
11000
0.64
100
10
7,489,362
104.10
3.00
5,167.66
2.57
5.11
4,309.36
-101.53
2.12
858.30
Ship
FRCC
Tanker
1985
0.67
24
20
679,123
9.44
0.27
468.60
0.23
0.46
390.77
-9.21
0.19
77.83
Sub-Total
105.72
3.04
5247.98
7.16
3.79
4274.89
-98.56
0.75
-973.09
Example
eGRID
Region
Vessel Type
Auxiliary
Engine Size
(kW)
Load
Factor
Number of
Annual
Vessel Calls
Avg. Hotel
Hours/Vessel
Call
Annual
Energy
Consumption
(kWh)
Percent Change
NOx SOx C02
Northeast
RFCE
Passenger/Cruise
11000
0.64
26
10
1,947,234
-97%
157%
-30%
Ship
RFCE
General Cargo
1776
0.22
15
35
218,221
-97%
157%
-30%
RFCE
RORO
2850
0.3
20
25
454,787
-97%
157%
-30%
Alaska
AKGD
ContainerShip
6800
0.17
40
10
491,915
-91%
-45%
-12%
AKGD
Passenger/Cruise
11000
0.64
50
12
4,493,617
-91%
45%
12%
Ship
Florida
FRCC
Passenger/Cruise
11000
0.64
100
10
7,489,362
-98%
71%
17%
Ship
FRCC
Tanker
1985
0.67
24
20
679,123
-98%
71%
17%
Sub-Total
B-3
-------
Methodology Demonstration: User Input Model Results
Table B-2 shows an example calculation for the Port of Charleston, using values specified by
Corbett and Comer (2013). Note that the emissions estimates presented here are slightly higher
than those initially estimated by Corbett and Comer as the emissions calculator factors in energy
losses in the grid as described in section 5.2.3.1.
Table B-2. Criteria pollutant and CO2 emissions rates for selected eGRID regions with USER ENTRY
specified for the Port of Charleston. USER ENTRY values transferred from Table 20.
Coastal and Great Lakes Subregion Annual Region Emission Rate (g/kWh)
eGRID Subregion
Subregion Name
NOx
S02
C02
CH4
N20
C02eq
PM10
PM2.5
CO
AKGD
ASCC Alaska Grid
1.15
0.21
570.12
0.012
0.003
571.37
AKMS
ASCC Miscellaneous
2.69
0.08
203.47
0.009
0.002
204.17
SRTV
SERC Tennessee Valley
0.52
1.49
630.14
0.008
0.010
633.46
SRVC
SERC Virginia/Carolina
0.36
0.92
487.01
0.010
0.008
489.69
| USER ENTRY
| USER ENTRY
| 0.344 |
1 1131
1 5141
1 1
1 1
1 1
| 0.203 |
| 0.152 |
| 0.088 |
B-4
-------
Table B-3. Shore power emissions calculator using facility-specific emissions factors in Table B-2.
Emissions Calculator: High Capacity Shore Power Connection (User Input Model)
eGRID Region Generation Facility Vessel Type Vessel Fuel Auxiliary Engine Size (kW) Load Factor Number of Annual Vessel Calls Avg. Hotel Hours/Vessel Call Transmission Losses Annual Energy Consumption (kWh)
USER ENTRY
2000 Passenger
MDO (0.1% S)
6758
1
68
10
0.06
4,888,766
USER ENTRY
3000 Passenger
MDO (0.1% S)
10134
1
68
10
0.06
7,330,979
Vessel Power Emissions (MT) Shore Power Emissions (MT) Difference (MT) Percent Difference
Vessel Type
NOx
SOx
C02
PM10
PM2.5
CO
2000 Passenger
67.95
1.96
3,373.25
1.22
1.12
5.38
3000 Passenger
101.90
2.93
5,058.38
1.83
1.69
8.06
Subtotal
169.85
4.89
8431.62
3.05
2.81
13.44
NOx
SOx
C02
PM10
PM2.5
CO
1.78
5.86
2,663.60
1.05
0.79
0.46
2.67
8.78
3,994.21
1.58
1.18
0.68
4.46
14.64
6657.81
2.63
1.97
1.14
NOx
SOx
C02
PM10
PM2.5
CO
NOx
SOx
C02
PM10
PM2.5
CO
-66.17
3.90
-709.65
-0.17
-0.34
-4.92
-97%
199%
-21%
-14%
-30%
-92%
-99.23
5.85
-1064.16
-0.26
-0.50
-7.38
-97%
199%
-21%
-14%
-30%
-92%
-165.40
9.75
-1773.82
-0.43
-0.84
-12.30
B-5
-------
Appendix C: Locations of Shore Power Installations at U.S. Ports
Container
Los Angeles / Long Beach
1 OPS Berth - Tug
Esr^HERE, DeLorme,
Mapmylndia, ©
OpenStreetMap contributors,
and the GIS user community
Seattle
2 OPS Berths - Cruise
! 97 OPS /111 Cruise Calls (2014)
Port Hueneme
3 OPS Berths -
391 Total Calls (2015)
Tacoma
2 OPS Berths - Container
, 100 OPS /100 Container Calls
San Diego
2 OPS Berths - Cruise
16 OPS/87 Cruise Calls (2012)
Long Beach
Berths: 1 Cruise, 15 Container, 1 Tanker
81, 125,16 0SP of 2018 Total Calls (2013)
Juneau
2 OPS Berths - Cruise
213 OPS 1498 Total Calls (2015) "
Esri, HERE, DeLorme, |
Mapmylndia, ©
OpenStreetMap contributors,
and the GIS user community*
San Francisco
2 OPS Berths - Cruise
49 OPS /128 Cruise Calls (2013)
Oakland
14 OPS Berths - Conatiner
Unknown OPS /1812 Total Calls (2012)
Legend
© No Annual OPS Information
• Low Capacity Shorepower Ports
Annual OPS Calls I Total Annual Calls
OPS_Annual I TotalCallsYr
• <10 %
• 11-25 %
0 26-50 %
O >50%
Approx. eGrid Subregions (2010)
Seattle
300 OPS Berths - Fishing
HERE, DeLorme, Mapmylndia, ©
contributors, and the
user community
Los Angeles
25 OPS Berths - Cruise &
141 OPS / 2014 Total Calls (2013)
Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Mapmylndia, €
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the
GIS user community
Brooklyn
1 OPS Berth - Cruise
18 OPS 142 Total Calls (2015)
Baltimore
3 OPS Berths - Tug
Boston
18 OPS Berths - Fishing
Figure C-l. Locations of shore power installations in the U.S., their capacity, number of shore power berths,
and vessel calls.
C-l
-------
Seattle
Boston
MROW
Brooklyn
San Francisco
Oakland
SRWW
Baltimore
SPNO
Port Hueneme
Los Angeles
SRMVj
Long Beach
Alaska
Juneau
US Ports - Max Vessel Size
Medium »
• Large
• Ports w/Shorepower
Approximate EPA eGrid Subregions in 2010
~ 'Boundaries are representative only as they are based on
companies and not geographic boundaries.
Philadelphia
Esri, HERE
Figure C-2. Location of U.S. ports with shore power and other U.S. ports.
C-2
------- |