Shore Power Technology
Assessment at
U.S. Ports
4% United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-R-22-037
December 2022
-------
Shore Power Technology
Assessment at U*S* Ports
2022 Update
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-17-001
Work Assignment No. 5-34
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
&EPA
United Slates
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA-420-R-22-037
December 2022
-------
Contents
Glossary iv
Executive Summary vi
1 Introduction 1
2 Background 3
3 U.S. Shore Power Characteristics 7
3.1 Capacity 7
3.2 Design 8
3.3 Standards 9
3.4 Readiness of the Vessel Fleet 10
3.5 Technical Specifications 13
3.6 Usage and Price 16
3.7 Time At-Berth 19
3.8 Costs and Benefits 20
3.9 United States Navy Shore Power Operations 21
3.10 CARB's Shore Power Regulations 21
3.10.1 CARB Regulation: Ocean-Going Vessels and Shore Power 22
4 Case Studies and Lessons Learned 24
4.1 Port of Los Angeles 24
4.1.1 Challenges and Opportunities 25
4.1.2 Planning 26
4.1.3 Infrastructure and Utility 27
4.1.4 Commissioning and Labor 28
4.2 Port of Hueneme 29
4.2.1 Challenges and Opportunities 29
4.2.2 Planning 30
4.2.3 Infrastructure and Utility 31
4.2.4 Commissioning and Labor 32
4.3 Port of New York and New Jersey 32
4.3.1 Challenges and Opportunities 33
4.3.2 Planning 34
4.3.3 Infrastructure and Utility 34
4.3.4 Commissioning and Labor 35
l
-------
4.4 Port of Seattle 35
4.4.1 Challenges and Opportunities 36
4.4.2 Planning 37
4.4.3 Infrastructure and Utility 38
4.4.4 Commissioning and Labor 39
4.5 Decarbonization of the Grid 39
4.6 Future Shore Power Technologies and Projects 42
5 Recommended Approach for Comparing Shore Power and Vessel Emissions 46
5.1 Inputs 46
5.2 Data and Assumptions 46
5.2.1 Vessel Inputs 47
5.2.1.1 Auxiliary engine hotel load at-berth 47
5.2.1.2 Auxiliary engine emission factors 48
5.2.2 Activity Inputs 50
5.2.2.1 Vessel port calls per year 50
5.2.2.2 Hoteling hours per port call 50
5.2.3 Shore Power Inputs 50
6 Conclusions 53
7 References 54
8 Acknowledgments 56
Appendix A: Summary of Studies of the Costs and Benefits of Shore Power A-l
Appendix B: User Guide: Shore Power Emissions Calculator B-l
ii
-------
List of Tables
Table 1: Technical specifications for shore power systems installed and planned at U.S. ports.. 14
Table 2: Vessel activity and service price at high-voltage shore power facilities in the United
States 16
Table 3: Vessel activity and service price at low-voltage shore power facilities in the U.S 18
Table 4: Average time at berth (hrs) by port and vessel type for select U.S. ports in 2020 19
Table 5: Average time at-berth by vessel type at top 25 U.S. ports 19
Table 6: AMP and AMP-B rates for shore power from LADWP 28
Table 7: High Demand (10,000 kW+) electric service rates for the city of Seattle from Seattle
City Light 38
Table 8: Comparison of regional eGRID emission factors 40
Table 9: Hoteling load by vessel type and size 47
Table 10: Auxiliary engine emission factors for medium-speed engines (g/kWh), as found in
EPA (2022) and IMO (2020) 49
Table 11: 2018 eGRID annual emissions rates (Coastal and Great Lakes subregions) 52
List of Figures
Figure 1: Electrical substation (left) and high voltage shore power vessel connection system
(right) Source: Port of San Diego 3
Figure 2: U. S. ports with existing and planned high-voltage shore power installations showing
EPA eGRID subregions 8
Figure 3: Schematic showing example shore power infrastructure, including the electrical
substation (A), cable interface (B), and ship's electrical equipment (C). (Source: Cavotec) 9
Figure 4: Global shore power installations. Data compiled by World Ports Climate Action
Program 13
Figure 5: Mobile shore power cable reel (left) and vessel connection (right) at the Port of Los
Angeles Source: Port of Los Angeles 25
Figure 6: Barge-based capture and control system operating at the Port of Los Angeles (Source:
Port of Los Angeles) 27
Figure 7: Historical and projected U.S. electricity generation 41
Figure 8: Planned additional utility-scale electricity generating capacity in 2022 (GW) 42
Figure 9: EPA eGRID subregions in 2019. Colors are used to delineate regions 51
iii
-------
Glossary
A Amperes
AMP Alternative Maritime Power
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 tugboats
Berth A ship's assigned place at a dock
Bulk vessels Ships that transport bulk cargo such as coal, iron ore, etc.
Bunker fuel used in marine vessels
CAECS CARB Approved Emission Control Strategy
CARB California Air Resources Board
CH4 Methane
CHC Commercial harbor craft
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CCheq Carbon dioxide equivalent
Cold ironing An alternate term for shore power
Container vessels Ships that transport containerized cargo
COVID-19 Coronavirus disease 2019 caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus
CPD Cable positioning device
Cruise vessels Ships that transport passengers to various ports-of-call
DERA Diesel Emissions Reduction Act
EERA Energy & Environmental Research Associates, LLC.
EGU Energy generating unit
eGRID Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database
EIA United States Energy Information Administration
EMSA European Maritime Safety Agency
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ERG Eastern Research Group
EU European Union
Fishing vessels Commercial fishing vessels
g Grams
GGL Grid gross loss
GW Gigawatt
GWP Global Warming Potential
HC Hydrocarbons
HFO Heavy fuel oil
Hotelling Vessel operations while stationary at the dock
hrs Hours
HVSC High-voltage shore connection
Hz Hertz
IC Innovate Concepts
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
iENCON Incentivized Shipboard Energy Conservation
IMO International Maritime Organization
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISO International Organization for Standardization
kV Kilovolts
iv
-------
kVArh Kilovolt ampere reactive hours
kWh Kilowatt-hours
L Liter
LADWP Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
Laker A ship that operates on the North American Great Lakes
LNG Liquefied natural gas
LVSC Low-voltage shore connection
Main engines The vessel's propulsion engines
MDO Marine diesel oil
MGO Marine gas oil
MT Metric tons
MVA Mega volt-ampere
MW Megawatt
MWh Megawatt-hours
N2O Nitrous oxide
NOx Oxides of nitrogen
NA ECA North American Emission Control Area
NWSA Northwest Seaport Alliance
NYCEDC New York City Economic Development Corporation
NY/NJ Port of New York and New Jersey
OTAQ EPA 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 Shoreside electrical power which marine vessels can plug into while at-berth to power
ancillary systems including onboard electrical systems, loading/unloading equipment, refrigeration,
heating, and cooling. Shore power is also referred to as cold ironing, Onshore Power Supply (OPS),
Shoreside Electricity (SEE), or Alternative Maritime Power (AMP).
Short ton 2,000 pounds
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
SOx sulfur oxides
Tanker vessels Ships that transport bulk liquids
TEU Twenty-foot equivalent unit
TIE Terminal Incident Event
Tug vessels Ships that assist larger vessels with maneuvering in port
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
V Volts
VIE Vessel Incident Event
Wharfinger The keeper or owner of a wharf or dock
WSF Washington State Ferries
v
-------
Executive Summary
Ports are gateways of commerce and drivers of the United States (U.S.) economy. At the same
time, they are places where large concentrations of diesel equipment can converge and emit
significant amounts of air pollution, including particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NOx), air
toxics, and carbon dioxide (CO2), which impacts human health and the environment. Many
marine vessels use diesel engines while at berth to power auxiliary systems such as lighting, air
conditioning, refrigeration, and crew berths. Shore power infrastructure has the potential to
significantly reduce emissions by enabling vessels to turn off their engines, and instead plug into
the local electricity grid to power auxiliary systems while at berth. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) developed this report to help port operators, state and local
governments, and other stakeholders better understand and evaluate shore power as a potential
emissions reduction strategy.
This Shore Power Technology Assessment at U.S. Ports - 2022 Update characterizes the
technical and operational aspects of shore power systems in the U.S. and demonstrates an
approach for comparing shore power and vessel emissions while at berth. This report is based on
the previously published 2017 Assessment and has been updated to include:
• Information on new shore power systems in the U.S. since 2017.
• Updates to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations, including new shore
power requirements that expands participation.
• Updated information on vessel readiness and real-world costs.
• Practical operational lessons learned from CARB as well as port operators implementing
shore power programs at the ports of New York & New Jersey, Seattle, Hueneme, and
Los Angeles.
This report also includes further refinement of an approach to calculate emissions benefits from
shore power, which has been incorporated into EPA's Shore Power Emissions Calculator
(SPEC) updated in May 2022. The May 2022 SPEC includes updated vessel emissions factors
from EPA's April 2022 Port Emissions Inventory Guidance, updated power grid emission factors
from EPA's latest Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database, expanded options for
vessel and fuel types, and improved usability.
This report, in conjunction with the calculator, can help port stakeholders - including applicants
for Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and Inflation Reduction Act
funding - evaluate whether shore power would be an appropriate means to reduce pollution at a
port, and to estimate emissions reductions from installed systems.
vi
-------
Hish Voltase vs. Low Voltase Shore Power Systems
High-voltage [6.6 or 11 kilovolts] shore connection systems in the U.S. have similar technical specifications
and meet international operation and safety standards. High-voltage shore connection systems are mainly used
today by cruise, container, and refrigerated vessels.
Low-voltage [240-480 volts] domestic systems are used by smaller fishing, tug. workboat, and support vessels
with lower power requirements. Technical specifications of these systems can vaiy considerably.
While this Assessment discusses both types of shore power systems, the focus is on high-voltage systems for
large vessels since they have greater potentialfor significant emission reductions.
Key Findings of the Shore Power Technology Assessment- 2022 Update
• Shore power can effectively reduce ship pollutant emissions at berth. Benefits vary
from port-to-port and by vessel type.
o Shore power installations typically produce zero onsite emissions. In most cases,
emissions from power generation facilities that supply electricity to shore power
installations are lower than associated auxiliary engine emissions occurring at berth
and are likely to decrease over time as renewable electricity generation increases.
Emissions from power generation facilities may or may not be within the confines of
the port and can often be located outside the local air shed,
o The potential emissions reduction is dependent on several factors:
¦ Vessel type, auxiliary engine age, and fuel type used at berth.
¦ Power demand of vessel auxiliary system.
¦ Time vessel spends at berth.
¦ Electricity generation fuel mix.
o EPA's Shore Power Emissions Calculator (SPEC) can be an effective tool to assess
emissions benefits of shore power,
o While shore power can reduce or eliminate auxiliary engine emissions at berth, shore
power does not address emissions from boilers or other vessel sources that must be
operational while the vessel is at berth. Vessels also continue to emit while in the
process of connecting to and disconnecting from shore power,
o The assessment also describes alternatives to shore power that may reduce emissions
at berth.
• Application of shore power in the United States is expanding to more places and
vessel types.
o Commercial shore power has grown significantly since the last report. This 2022
Update identifies expansion projects at several ports with pre-existing shore power
installations and three planned projects at the ports of Galveston and Miami for cruise
ships and Philadelphia for container ships. Additionally, ports have seen an increase
in the number of vessels that are equipped with shore power.
vii
-------
o There are currently ten ports using high voltage systems serving cruise, container and
refrigerated ("reefer") vessels, and many more ports that use low voltage systems,
serving tugs, fishing, and offshore support vessels,
o Most U.S. shore power systems for commercial marine vessels entered into service in
the past decade.
o CARB's 2020 At-Berth Regulation continues to drive expansion of shore power at six
ports in California by including more vessel types and visits in the program over time,
and in the near future will include additional locations in California,
o International shore power standards for high-voltage systems are in place to make it
easier for ports to select the proper equipment and to ensure shore-power capable
ships can successfully use the systems at ports around the world,
o In addition to the deployment of shore power technology 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,
o Shore power can be most effective when applied at ports with a high percentage of
frequently returning vessels.
• Barriers to shore power include infrastructure and electricity costs.
o Shore power can require significant investments in landside infrastructure and vessel
modifications.
¦ Many ports still do not have the appropriate infrastructure to connect to
vessels with shore power components and upgraded connections to the
electrical grid are often required.
¦ Ships must be retrofitted with vessel-side infrastructure to connect to shore
power systems, which can be costly and require thoughtful planning about
component placement.
o The relative cost of using shore power instead of a vessel's onboard fuel sources is
more attractive when fuel costs are greater than electricity costs.
• Lessons learned from CARB and the port operators in New York & New Jersey, Seattle,
Hueneme and Los Angeles include:
o The importance of early and frequent interaction and planning between the port,
regulatory agencies, and utilities - to address demands of the commercial
waterfront as well as local power needs,
o Need for system designs to be flexible in designating locations of dockside shore
power connection vaults and cables to ensure vessels of all sizes and types can
connect.
o System design should account for future demand that could include other
terminals and nearby berths or electrification of other types of port equipment,
o Reliability and availability of shore power components and power supply to ensure
successful shore power operations. Adhering to on-time vessel scheduling, so vessels
can consistently and quickly plug in and not delay other vessels and port operations,
o Having a ship pre-approval system to quickly plug in for repeat ships,
o Public funding sources are critical for shore power infrastructure development.
viii
-------
o Shore power has helped deliver emissions reductions for the local community, and
local residents notice when the system is not working.
This Shore Power Technology Assessment at U.S. Ports - 2022 Update is one of several
technical resources to support diesel emissions reductions at ports around the country as part of
EPA's Ports Initiative.1 including the National Port Strategy Assessment.2 Port. Emissions
Inventory Guidance.3 and Best Clean Air Practices for Port Operations.4
oEPA
Uivi«j Swtes
Envwonmwital Protection
Agencv
NATIONAL PORT STRATEGY
ASSESSMENT: Reducing Air
Pollution and Greenhouse Gases
at U.S. Ports
erf »r»m«Kirc*«on Ht Quality
September 2014
Ports Emissions
Inventory Guidance:
Methodologies for Estimating
Port-Related and Goods Movement
Mobile Source Emissions
EPA. Ports Initiative, https://www.epa.gov/ports-initiatiwe. accessed August 16. 2022.
SPA National Port Strategy Assessment: Reducing Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gases at U.S. Ports.
https://www.epa.gov/ports-initiative/national-port-strategv-assessment-reducing-air-pollution-and-ereenhouse
gases-
accessed August 16. 2022.
SPA. Port and Goods Movement Emission Inventories, https://www.epa.gov/ports-initiative/port-and-goods-movement-
emission-inventories. accessed August 16. 2022.
EPA, Best Clean Air Practices for Port Operations, https://www.epa.gov/ports-initiative/best-clean-air-practlces-port-
operations. accessed August 16. 2022.
IX
-------
1 Introduction
The original Shore Power Technology Assessment was published in March 2017; it
characterized the technical and operational aspects of shore power systems in the United States,
demonstrated an approach for comparing shore power and vessel emissions while at-berth, and
summarized the experience of 16 ports operating shore power systems.
This updated version of the Shore Power Ports Assessment has several enhancements:
1. Information on new shore power systems in the U.S. since 2017. (See highlighted items
in Tables 2, 3 and 4)
2. Updates to the CARB regulatory section, including discussion of new shore power
requirements that expands participation in the program. (See Section 3.10)
3. Updated information on vessel readiness and real-world costs. (See Section 3, including
highlighted items in Table 3)
4. Practical operational lessons learned from CARB as well as port operators implementing
shore power programs at the ports of New York and New Jersey, Seattle, Hueneme, and
Los Angeles. (See Section 4)
5. Further refinement of the approach to calculate at-berth ship emissions and emissions
from shore power, which has been incorporated into the accompanying May 2022 version
of EPA's Shore Power Emissions Calculator. (See Section 5)
The report is comprised of six sections:
Section 1 provides an overview of this Shore Power Technology Assessment.
Section 2 presents background information on shore power and its potential emissions reduction
benefits for at-berth (i.e., hoteling) vessels.
Section 3 evaluates the characteristics of existing shore power systems in the United States.
Section 4 summarizes lessons learned from CARB and the ports of New York and New Jersey,
Seattle, Hueneme, and Los Angeles.
Section 5 presents a recommended approach for comparing shore power and vessel emissions
while at-berth.
Section 6 presents study findings and concluding remarks.
The report includes two appendices:
Appendix A summarizes information on shore power programs at ports equipped for these
systems (updated to include new publicly available information, including associated
environmental benefits and costs).
Appendix B contains the user guide for the Shore Power Emissions Calculator.
This report and accompanying calculator were developed as part of EPA's Ports Initiative which
supports efforts to improve efficiency, enhance energy security, save costs, and reduce harmful
health impacts by advancing next-generation, cleaner technologies and practices at ports. Tools
such as the Shore Power Calculator (SPEC) can be used to estimate how harmful air pollutants
could be reduced at U.S. ports using shore power systems, benefiting air quality, human health,
the economy, and the environment. These estimates can help port stakeholders - including
1
-------
applicants for Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and Inflation
Reduction Act funding - evaluate potential shore power projects for grant applications, and for
reporting emission reductions from grant projects. As many marine vessels operate around ports
near communities of color and low-income families, emission reductions from these vessels
could directly benefit those communities experiencing disproportionate exposures to this
pollution.
2
-------
2 Background
Ports are the main gateway for U.S. trade and are essential to the overall U.S. economy, as well
as the local economies of many cities and regions nationwide. In recent years, there has been a
growing focus on the transportation infrastructure needed to support efficient movement of
goods and people through ports. EPA's Ports Initiative recognizes the economic and
environmental significance of the U.S. port industry sector and is working to explore and identify
ways to evaluate and incentivize technologies and strategies to reduce diesel emissions at ports.
One way to reduce emissions at ports is using shore power technology, which allows ships to
"plug into" electrical power sources on shore. Turning off a ship's diesel auxiliary engines while
at-berth would significantly reduce vessel emissions, but these reductions must be compared to
the emissions generated by the landside electrical grid.
The potential for emissions savings will depend on vessel fuel and engine characteristics and the
landside electricity generation mix (e.g., coal, oil, gas, nuclear, wind, solar, hydroelectric,
geothermal, biomass). The relative share of fuel sources for electric generating units typically
changes over time, varying by season, day of week, and even hour-to-hour, depending on
regional electricity demand. To the extent that the electricity grid becomes cleaner and more
efficient over time, the potential emissions reductions should grow relative to diesel auxiliary
engines. However, the cost of shore power electric generation and delivery, for both the vessels
and the port terminal, can be substantial.
Figure 1: Electrical substation (left) and high voltage shore power vessel connection system (right)
Source: Port of San Diego
Shore power installations in the U.S. have been increasing in the past decade, in terms of
landside installations at existing port locations as well as new port locations. High-voltage shore
power systems in the United States have similar technical specifications and meet international
operation and safety standards. High-voltage systems are mainly used by cruise, container, and
refrigerated vessels. The characteristics of low-voltage systems used by smaller fishing, tug,
workboat and supply vessels with lower power requirements can vary considerably. The focus of
this report is on high-voltage systems since they have greater potential for significant emission
reductions. Low-voltage systems were not fully investigated at ports but previously available
information from ports has been included in this report as these systems can also provide
emissions benefits. In addition, the time vessels spend at-berth, which affects how much shore
3
-------
power the vessel could use, varies from port-to-port and by vessel type. Cruise ships and roll-
on/roll-off (RORO) vessels are generally attached to a landside dock (referred to as hoteling) for
shorter periods of time than container and bulk cargo vessels.
The emissions reduction benefits of shore power have been evaluated by multiple organizations
and researchers. For example, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has amended their
At-Berth Regulation which is projected to further reduce air emissions from diesel auxiliary
engines on container ships, passenger ships, and refrigerated cargo ships while at-berth
("hoteling"). The prior At-Berth regulation was estimated to reduce 80% of localized criteria
pollutant emissions from Cruise, Container and Refrigerated, vessels at-berth, and the current At-
Berth Regulation is expected to further reduce emissions from an additional 2,300+ vessel visits
when fully phased in 2027 by expanding to include vehicle carriers (RORO) and tankers, and
new ports and terminals.5 CARB estimates a 55% decrease in cancer risk by 2031 due to air
quality improvements by using shore power instead of auxiliary engines at berth, providing
health benefits of $2.32 billion at a cost of $2.23 billion.
Other studies have long demonstrated significant benefits from shore power. A study by
ENVIRON (2004)6 estimated that shore power would reduce at-berth emissions of NOx and
particulate matter (PM) by more than 99% and 83-97%, respectively, for vessels calling on the
Port of Long Beach, California. A report by Yorke Engineering (2007)7 estimated that shore
power could reduce at-berth emissions of NOx, carbon monoxide (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, California, in 2007.
A 2013 analysis by Corbett and Comer8 estimated the potential emissions reductions from shore
power for at-berth cruise vessels at the Port of Charleston, South Carolina. They found that shore
power would greatly reduce air pollution from these ships: NOx emissions could be reduced by
98%, PM2.5 by 66%, SO2 by 73% and CO2 by 26%. Emission reductions were estimated to be
greater in 2019 as the local electric power provider reduces the share of coal in its electricity
generation portfolio.9
More recently, Friends of the Earth commissioned studies by ERG in 2019 and 2020, which
estimated significant potential reductions at the ports of Charleston and Savannah.10 They
estimated NOx reductions of 98% for both ports; PM2.5 reductions of 77% and 53%, respectively;
and sulfur dioxide (SO2) reductions of 69% and 55%, respectively. Shore power CO2 reductions
were estimated at 49% and 32% at the ports of Charleston and Savannah, respectively.
5 CARB. Control Measure for Ocean Going Vessels at Berth. August 26,2020. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/202Q-
08/External%20At-Berth%20Fact%20Sheet%20August%202020%20ADA O.pdf
6 ENVIRON. Cold ironing cost effectiveness study: Volume I report. Los Angeles, 2004.
7 Yorke Engineering. Port of San Diego: Cold ironing study. Prepared for the Port of San Diego. 2007.
8 Corbett, J. J., & Comer, B. Clearing the air: Would shoreside power reduce air pollution emissions from cruise ships calling
on the Port of Charleston, SCPPittsford, NY: Energy and Environmental Research Associates.2013.
9 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% mostly nuclear and hydro.
10 Charleston: https://foe.org/resources/port-of-charleston-shore-power-analysis/ October 27, 2020.
Savannah: https://foe.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Port-of-Savannah-Shore-Power-Analysis-Rev.-l-ll-Feb-2019.pdf
February 11, 2019.
4
-------
Additional studies have focused on ports outside the United States. Hall 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 United Kingdom's national electric grid (Hall, 2010; Chang and Wang, 2012a). Chang and
Wang (2012b) estimated that shore power would reduce CO2 and PM emissions by 57% and
39%, respectively, in the Port of Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Sciberras et al. estimated that shore power
could reduce CO2 emissions by up to 42%, using a RORO port in Spain as a case study.
In Europe, under Directive 2014/94/EU, the European Commission mandated the installation of
shore power in all ports in the European Union (EU) "unless there is no demand and the costs are
disproportionate to the benefits, including environmental benefits." Proposed regulations in the
EU (COM/2021/562 final)11 state that from January 1, 2030, container and passenger vessels
calling at EU member states must connect to shore power while at-berth. These rules apply
unless the vessel is at-berth for fewer than two hours, calls at port for safety of life at sea reasons,
or uses approved zero-emission technologies.12
It should be noted, particularly with respect to the older U.S ports studies, that the North
American Emission Control Area (NA ECA) had not yet been established at the time the older
studies were performed. The NA ECA began in 2012 and resulted in the use of cleaner, low-
sulfur fuels in commercial marine vessels, and technologies that reduce NOx emissions from
engines on newer-built vessels within 200 nautical miles (nm) of the U.S. coast. Under the NA
ECA, fuel sulfur (S) content was limited to 1.00% S and was further limited to 0.10% S on
January 1, 2015. Currently, "IMO 2020"13 set sulfur levels in the fuel oil used on board ships
operating around the world, outside of designated emission control areas, at 0.50% S, a
significant reduction from the previous limit of 3.5% S. Additionally, marine auxiliary engines
installed on U.S. vessels built on or after January 1, 2016, and operating within the ECA are
subject to stringent Tier III NOx standards. These standards reduce NOx emissions by 80%
compared with Tier I standards. Even with the ECA in effect, 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 emissions rates even lower than those from cleaner, diesel-
powered marine auxiliary engines.
Under the right circumstances when a vessel is connected to shore power, overall pollutant
emissions can be significantly reduced when utilizing power from the regional electricity grid,
depending on the mix of energy sources.
The studies presented in Appendix A suggest that shore power may be an effective strategy to
reduce in-port and near-port emissions of air pollution, improving air quality for communities
located near or adjacent to ports, many of which are non-attainment areas for criteria air
pollutants.14 CARB analysis indicates that there may also be fuel cost savings of approximately
11 European Union Law https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52021PC0562. July 14, 2021.
12 Per Annex III of the proposed regulations, zero-emission technologies include fuel cells, onboard electricity storage, and
onboard electricity production from wind and solar energy.
13 IMO 2020 Global Fuel Standard, January, 2020 https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Pages/Sulphur-2020.aspx
14 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: https://www.epa.gov/green-book. Accessed April 11, 2022
5
-------
1% associated with shore power use compared to marine bunker fuels,15 though reports from
industry and U.S. ports indicate that this may not always be the case in practice. Regardless, cost
effectiveness is highly dependent on fuel prices, but air pollution reduction and its health benefits
for the surrounding communities need to be considered in these calculations.
Improved air quality can also provide economic benefits by improving human health and
reducing environmental damages, resulting in reduced medical costs and environmental
remediation expenses. The studies referenced in Appendix A show that many ports adopting
shore power have seen significant reductions in criteria pollutant emissions from ships at berth
depending on fleet/engine fuel mix and the time frame reported. Shore power can also reduce
noise levels at ports when auxiliary engines are turned off. Using shore power also allows
maintenance crews to repair and maintain auxiliary equipment that might otherwise be
inaccessible if the engines were running. As noted below in conversations with ports, shore
power has helped ports deliver emissions reductions for the local community, and those residents
notice when the system is not working.
15 CARB. At-Berth Draft Cost Analysis - Appendix B SRIA. August 2019. https://ww2.arb,ca.gov/resources/documents/berth-
draft-cost-analvsis-appendixb-sria-august-2019
6
-------
3 U.S. Shore Power Characteristics
This section identifies and describes existing and planned U.S. shore power facilities. These
systems are owned and managed either by the ports or by individual terminal tenants.
3.1 Capacity
U.S. commercial shore power systems fall into two main categories:
• High-voltage shore connection (HVSC):
o 6,600 or 11,000 volts (V).
o Currently servicing large cruise, container, and reefer vessels,
o Systems to service RORO vessels may commence by 2025 at San Pedro Bay
ports.16
• Low-voltage shore connection (LVSC) 220-480 volts (V).
o Typically service smaller vessels such as fishing, tug, workboat, ferries, and
service vessels.
In the U.S. there are currently 10 ports serving cruise, container and refrigerated ("reefer")
vessels, with a mix of single vessel type shore power capable ports and several ports that can
serve multiple vessel types; overall number of shore power capable ports is expected to rise.
Commercial shore power has grown significantly since the last report. All six California ports
have expanded their existing shore power systems to meet current regulations. For example, Port
of San Diego17 is doubling its shore power capability for cruise ships, which is expected to be
available in late 2022. There are many expansion projects outside of California as noted in Table
1. For example, the Port of Tacoma is expanding shore power to container vessels and the Port of
Seattle is expanding shore power to electrify its waterfront at Pier 66 culminating with shore
power at the Bell Street Pier Cruise Terminal18 by 2024. There are also planned projects at the
ports of Galveston and Miami for cruise ships and Philadelphia for container ships. Port
Everglades is also exploring shore power.19 Additionally, several ports have seen an increase in
the number of unique vessels that are equipped with shore power.
The focus of this assessment is on HVSC systems since they have greater potential for
significant emission reductions. Tables 2, 3 and Appendix A show examples of LVSC
installations, however, these are only a small fraction of the installations around the United
States.
Table 1 summarizes existing U.S. ports with HVSC systems installations by capacity and the
vessel type(s) served. Figure 2 shows the locations of existing U.S. ports with HVSC
installations and the associated EPA Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database
16 CARB, Control Measure for Ocean-Going Vessels at Berth, August 26, 2020. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-
sheets/control-measure-ocean-going-vessels-berth
17 Port of San Diego Awards Contract to Double Cruise Ship Shore Power, January 12, 2022,
https://www.portofsandiego.org/press-releases/general-press-releases/port-san-diego-awards-contract-double-cruise-ship-
shore-power
18 Port of Seattle, Pier 66 Shore Power Project, https://www.portseattle.org/proiects/pier-66bell-street-pier-shore-power
19 Port Everglades Explores Shore Power with Florida Power & Light Agreement, Mar. 15, 2022,
https://www.porteverglades.net/articles/post/port-everglades-explores-shore-power-with-fpl-agreement/.
7
-------
(eGRID) subregions. Figure 2 also notes additional ports with planned HVSC shore power
installations, which are further outlined in Section 4.6.
Figure 2: U. S, ports with existing and planned high-voltage shore power connections (HVSC) along with
EPA eGRID subregions.
3.2 Design
Shore power systems can be dock-mounted, containerized, or barge-mounted. Dock-mounted
systems require power metering and transformer equipment to be mounted on the dock and have
a cable-positioning device to help vessels connect to the system at berth. An example schematic
is shown in Figure 3. Barge-mounted systems require little or no dockside space. These systems
are self-contained power plants that typically use alternative fuels or technologies such as
liquefied natural gas (LNG) and fuel cells.
A shore power system is typically made of 3 main subsystems:
1. Electrical substation
2. Interface system
3. Ship's electrical equipment on board
The Electrical substation converts the electricity from the grid, or from a local dedicated
generator using clean or low carbon fuel, into the right voltage and frequency for the vessels.
8
-------
These systems require electrical protection devices, transformer, frequency converter, power
meters and safety control systems.
The Interface or cable management system is a system typically installed on shore
(containerized or dock mounted, sometimes barge-mounted), or on ship, that stores, deploys and
recovers safely the cables and connectors necessary for the shore power connection. The Cable
Management System (CMS) cables then plug in to a receptacle with sockets or inlets.
Ship's Electrical Equipment is the additional electrical equipment (switchboard, control
systems, transformers, power monitoring and control systems) that a ship needs to install in the
engine room and near the connection point on deck to receive shore power. This equipment can
be easily fitted in the hull for a new built, however, to retrofit existing vessels, one often needs to
find extra space.
A
1
c
M
1
* .~~~~.
Jaoool
YDOOOi1"
-o
3
Figure 3: Schematic showing example shore power infrastructure, including the electrical substation (A),
cable interface (B), and ship's electrical equipment (C). (Source: Cavotec)
3.3 Standards
The international standard on shore power (IEC/ISO/IEEE 80005) has been developed to ensure
worldwide compatibility and safe connection between ports and vessels. All High Voltage Shore
Connection (HVSC) installations should meet IEC/ISO/IEEE 80005-1:2019/ AMD 1:2022
industiy standards,20 which cancels and replaces the IEC/ISO/IEEE 80005-1:2012 standard. The
IEC/ISO/IEEE 80005 1:2019/AVID 1:2022 standard applies to systems requiring 1 mega volt-
ampere (MVA21) of power or more. The newer standard provides significant technical
modifications for safety improvements with respect to:
• Grounding requirements.
• Procedures for alternative testing.
• Sets a minimum current of 50 milliamps for safety circuits and a maximum time for
automatic breaker opening of 200 milliseconds.
ISO. IEEE 80008-1:2019/ AMD 1:2022. Utility Connections in Port - Part 1: High Voltage Shore Connection (HVSC)
Systems - General Requirements - Amendment 1. February 2022. https://www.iso.org/standard/82252.html
1 MVA is equivalent to 1 megawatt [MW] at a power factor of one.
9
-------
• Requires use of metallic shielding.
• Requires that cruise ships be connected with four cables.22
• Specifies that an on-ship transformer is optional and provides further details on fixed and
movable onshore supply points.
Further additions are forthcoming to the standard to address requirements for vehicle carriers
which are different from RORO.23 Details of the amendment are not available at time of this
publication.
The most recent standard for Low Voltage Shore Connection (LVSC) systems (for shore-to-ship
connections, transformers, and associated equipment for vessels requiring up to 1 MVA -
IEC/ISO/IEEE 80005-3:2014)24 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. shore power
systems are known to currently meet this standard.
3.4 Readiness of the Vessel Fleet
Worldwide there are approximately 4,500 commercial vessels with a gross tonnage greater than
5,000 tons that are currently equipped for shore power.25 Analysis of the global fleet by the
British Ports Association indicates that approximately 15% of container vessels are shore power
equipped along with around 27% of cruise ships.26 This number continues to increase and can
vary significantly by vessel type and region.
The first cruise ship installation in the U.S. was for the Port of Juneau, Alaska, in 2001 and the
first U.S. container ship terminal was installed in 2004 for Berth 100 at the West Basin Terminal
of the Port of Los Angeles, California. Early adoption of shore power for cruise ships and
container ships at Pacific ports, driven by environmental and energy availability needs and
regulatory compliance, increased the rate of shore power among these vessels. For example, 48%
of cruise ships visiting the Victoria Cruise Terminal in Victoria, British Columbia, in 2018 were
equipped with shore power connections. This number is projected to be 85% by 2030 and 95%
by 2040.27
In California, the Port of Los Angeles, 651 of 958 container ship calls (68%) connected to the
ports shore power systems, or employed shore power equivalent methods in 2021, up from 54%
22 ISO. IEEE 80008-1:2019: AMD 1:2022. Utility Connections in Port - Part 1: High Voltage Shore Connection (HVSC)
Systems https://www.iso.org/standard/82252.html
23 IEEE SA Draft International Standard - Utility Connections in Port, February 23, 2022, https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/800Q5-
lb/10844/
24 IEC/PAS 80005-3:2014 Utility connections in port - Part 3: Low Voltage Shore Connection (LVSC) Systems - General
requirements https://www.iso.org/standard/64718.html
25 World Fleet Register. January 2021, https://www.clarksons.net/WFR/
26 British Ports Association. Reducing Emissions from Shipping in Ports: Examining the Barriers to Shore Power.
https://www.britishports.org.uk/content/uploads/2021/10/bpa shore power paper may 20201.pdf Accessed August 16,
2022.
27 Greater Victoria Harbour Authority. Shore Power Project, https://gvha.ca/deep-water-terminal/shore-power-proiect/
10
-------
in 2014.28 At the Port of Oakland, 77% of calls in 2021 were by shore power commissioned
vessels, and 70% of calls drew shore power.29 CARB analysis estimates that the upcoming At-
Berth Regulation may lead to up to 763 additional vessels to be equipped for shore power.
Rates of shore power readiness are much lower for tankers. The first tanker terminal with shore
power was constructed in 2009 at the Port of Long Beach, California, for BP to handle crude oil
from Alaska. To date, the Alaskan Navigator and its sister ship, the Alaska Navigator, were both
equipped to connect to shore power and have been using shore power at the Long Beach facility
for over a decade. However, retrofitting these two ships to accommodate for shore power was
less challenging than a typical tanker due to already having diesel-electric engines, which were
already well-equipped for high-voltage systems and had a trained crew. Use of shore power on
tankers have different challenges than for other ship types. For example, tankers have boilers
which are used for steam-driven cargo pumps and replacing these pumps may be impractical.
Tankers also use the exhaust from their boilers to generate inert gas to reduce the oxygen content
in the vessel's storage tanks to suppress accumulation of flammable gases.30 CARB's berth
analysis for the At-Berth Regulation, anticipates that the majority of tankers may opt for
alternative control measures rather than retrofitting for shore power.31
For Bulk and General Cargo vessels CARB's At-Berth Regulation does not currently impose
shore power or alternative control measures, as their dockside emissions are relatively small and
they tend to line-haul at multiple locations along the berth during a single visit, such that
investments to build or retrofit bulkers and cargo ships with shore power may not be cost-
effective. However, in 2022, CARB staff will perform an interim evaluation and determine the
feasibility of potential control technologies for use with bulk and general cargo vessels.
There is also a geographic element in assessing vessel fleet readiness for shore power. With
California and China ports32 requiring the use of shore power, many shore power-ready vessels
are currently operating in the Pacific. Analysis of public vessel connection data for cruise ships
calling on the ports of Juneau and Los Angeles, which are both shore power equipped, shows
that nearly one quarter (77 out of 323) of the global shore power equipped cruise ships visit these
two ports. Similarly, vessel connection data for container ships calling on the ports of Los
Angeles33 and Oakland34 indicate that around 15.2 % (819 out of 5,371) of the global shore
power equipped container ships visit these two ports. These counts do not represent a complete
inventory of all vessels equipped with shore power, but instead provide a lower bound value for
cruise and container ship shore power readiness.
28 Port of LA AMP Operator Summary 2014, https://kentico.portoflosangeles.org/getmedia/7564269e-4780-47a2-86ee-
3da75231e27c/2014 AMP Counts POLA Accessed 12/16/2022.
29 Port of Oakland Shore Power Summary All 2021. Accessed 12/16/2022. https://www.oaklandseaport.com/development-
programs/shore-power/
30 Eric Tupper, Introduction to Naval Architecture (5th edition), 2013.
31 CARB Staff Analysis of Potential Emission Reduction Strategies by Port/Terminal/Berth for Crude and Product Tanker
Vessels, May 2019, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/tankeranalvsis ADA.pdf
32 Natural Resources Defense Council. China Taking Further Steps to Clean up Shipping Pollution, January 2019.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/barbara-flnamore/china-taking-further-steps-clean-shipping-pollution
33 Vessel connection data for the Port of Los Angeles were obtained through a public records request
34 Port of Oakland commissioned vessels available at https://ldrv.ms/x/s!AvlUF4vuwRKbs2F4s_Jld-Sq3qbv?e=BCdhel
Port of Los Angeles vessel calls obtained via public records request. Accessed April 11, 2022.
11
-------
In China, shore power is available at all container terminal berths at the Port of Shenzhen,35
which offers subsidies for construction of shore power berths (30%), fully subsidizing demand
charges, and fully subsidizing electricity prices to align with the rate demanded by the
government which also factors in the price of oil.36 The Port of Shanghai has entered into an
"EcoPartnership" with the Port of Los Angeles to facilitate sharing shore power information, and
have created a Green Shipping Corridor between the two ports.37 China has mandated that
China-flagged public service vessels, inland river vessels, and river-sea vessels built on or after
January 1, 2019, be equipped with a shore power system. China also mandated that additional
China-flagged vessels built on or after January 1, 2020, including coastal container ships, cruise
ships and ferries, passenger ships over 3,000 metric tons, and dry bulk carriers over 50,000
metric tons be equipped with shore power systems.38
It should also be noted that shore power applications are expanding in Europe. EU regulation
2014/94/EU requires European ports to provide shore power by 2025.39 As more European ports
offer shore power, there are likely to be more shore power-ready vessels in the Atlantic.
At present, shore power has not been extensively adopted globally. However, the International
Maritime Organization (IMO), transportation and environment advocacy groups, and port
certification groups have been encouraging ports throughout the world to adopt shore power
systems. A list of 68 shore power-equipped ports around the world has been compiled by the
World Ports Climate Action Program40 (Figure 4).
35 DaChan Bay Terminals, DaChan Baty Terminals Becomes the First Container Terminals in South China with all Berths
Providing Shore Power, December 6, 2019, https://www.dcbterminals.com/en/news/press-release/22/6/dachan-bav-terminals-
becomes-the-first-container-terminals-in-south-china-with-all-berths-providing-shore-power.html
36 Shenzhen Government on line, 2018 http://www.sz.gov.cn/zfgb/2018/gbl068/201809/t20180903 14059441.htm Note that
information was obtained from an archived version of this link, translated using Google Translate.
https://web.archive.Org/web/20191214162115/http://www.sz.gov.cn/zfgb/2018/gbl068/201809/t20180903 14059441.htm
37 Maritime Executive, Los Angeles and Shanghai Plan World's First Green Shipping Corridor, January 31, 2022,
https://maritime-executive.com/article/los-angeles-and-shanghai-plan-world-s-first-green-shipping-corridor
38 Seatrade Maritime News, China Mandating Shore Side Power for New Vessels on Domestic Trades, December 13, 2018.
https://www.seatrade-maritime.com/asia/china-mandating-shore-side-power-new-vessels-domestic-trades
39 European Parliament. More Efficient and Cleaner Maritime Transport. P9_TA (2021)0131, April 2021.
40 World Ports Sustainability Report 2020. https://sustainableworldports.org/wp-content/uploads/WORLD-PORTS-
SUSTAINABILITY-REPQRT-2020-FIN.pdf
12
-------
3.5 Technical Specifications
Table 1 summarizes the technical specifications for shore power systems installed at 22 U.S. port
locations, including 11 installations that were partially funded by EPA's Diesel Emissions
Reduction Act (DERA) Program that are referenced in Table 1. These specifications were
compiled from several different sources, outlined in the Table 1 footnotes; blanks indicate
technical specifications we were unable to determine. The table shows that high-voltage shore
power currently serves cruise, container, tanker, and reefer vessels, whereas low-voltage systems
serve fishing, tug and support vessels. As of the year 2022 all U.S. systems use 60 hertz (Hz)
frequency. High-voltage systems use 6.6 kV, 11 kV, or both; low-voltage systems typically use
220-480 V. Average usage is reported in various ways, including watt-hours, electricity cost, or
days of usage.
The European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) has published additional technical guidance on
equipment, technology, planning, installation, operations, and safety of shore power systems for
European ports. This two-part guide by EMSA titled "Shore-Side Electricity, Guidance to Port
Authorities and Administrations" 41 is intended to aide all ports and stakeholders.
41 EMSA Shore Side Electricity, https://emsa.europa.eu/eleetrification/sse.html. August 12, 2022.
13
-------
Table 1: Technical specifications for shore power systems installed and planned at U.S. ports.
Port Name
Vessel Types
First Year of
Installation
Maximum
Capacity (MW)
Average Annual
Usage
Voltage (kV)
Manufacturer
High Voltage
Juneau43
Cruise
2001
11.00
4,107 MWh
6.6 and 11
Local Utility
Seattle44,45*
Cruise
Cruise
Ferries (WSF
Terminal)
2004
2024 Planned
2025 Onwards
20
4,091MWh (2019)*
6.6 and 11
Watts Marine
San Francisco46,47*
Cruise
2010
12.00
3,872 MWh (2019)*
6.6 and 11
Watts Marine
Brooklyn48,49*
Cruise
2015
20
596 MWh (2019)*
6.6 and 11
Watts Marine
Los Angeles50
Cruise, Container
2004
40.00
19,560 MWh51
6.6
Cavotec
Long Beach52
Cruise
Container
Tanker
2011
2009
2000
16.00
10,182MWh (2019)*
6.6 and 11
Cavotec: Watts
Marine
San Diego53
Cruise, Reefer
2010
12.00
3,308 MWh (2019)*
6.6 and 11
Watts Marine
Oakland54
Container
2012-2013
8
32,087MWh (2020)55
6.6
Cavotec
Hueneme56,57*
Reefer
2014
3 MW
4,420 MWh58
6.6
Cavotec
Tacoma59*60,61*
Container, RORO
Container
2009
2022 Planned
6.6
Wood Harbinger
42 EPA, Shore Power Technology Assessment at U.S. Ports. 2017 https://www.epa.gov/ports-initiative/shore-power-technologv-assessment-us-ports
43 Alaska Electric Light and Power Co. Princess Cruise Ship Shore Power Project 2001 Juneau. Alaska, https://renewableiuneau.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/02/TuneauShoresidePowerProiect.pdf
44 Port of Seattle. Waterfront Electrification- Shore Power at Pier 66. https://www.portseattle.org/sites/default/files/2018-12/waterfront-electrification-P66.pdf
45 FY20 DERA National Grant. Port of Seattle. Cruise Ship Shore Power Project
46 ENVIRON (2015).
47 FY09 DERA National Grant. Port of San Francisco. Design and install shore-to-ship electrical connection system for cruise ships
48 WPSP, WPCAP Power2Sship dynamic Google Earth Map https://sustainableworldports.org/wpcap/wg-3/wpcap-power2ship-dvnamic-google-earth-map/. Accessed December
16,2022.
49 FY09 DERA National Grant, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Install shore power at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal
50 Port of LA. Alternative Maritime Power (AMP) https://www.portoflosangeles.org/environment/air-quality/alternative-maritime-power-(amp). Accessed December 16. 2022.
51 $4.2 million in utilities at an average electricity cost of $0.215/kWh (Port of Los Angeles. 2014).
52 Port of Long Beach Shore to Ship Power - Design Standards, https://thehelm.polb.com/download/20/shore-power-cold-ironing-resources/6624/cold-ironing-shore-to-ship-
standards-100605.pdf
53 Port of San Diego. Terminals January 12. 2022 https://www.portofsandiego.org/press-releases/general-press-releases/port-san-diego-awards-contract-double-cruise-ship-shore-
power
54 Personal Communication: Chris Peterson. Wharfinger. Port of Oakland.
55 Table 2-12. Port of Oakland 2020 Seaport Air Emissions Inventory.
https://www.portofoakland.com/files/PDF/Port%200akland%202020%20Emissions%20Inventorv%20Final%20Report.pdf
56 P2S Inc.. Port of Hueneme, Shore Power Infrastructure, https://www.p2sinc.com/proiects/port-of-hueneme-shore-power-infrastructure. Accessed December 16. 2022.
57 FY13 DERA National Grant, Port of Hueneme. Install shore-side power to ocean going vessels.
58 CARB At Berth Emission Estimates https://ww2 .arb ,ca. gov/resources/documents/berth-emission-estimates
59 Wood Harbinger. TOTE Vessel Shore Power - Port of Tacoma. https://www.woodharbinger.com/proiects/tote-vessel-shore-power/. Accessed December 16. 2022.
60 FY19 DERA National Grant. Northwest Seaport Alliance. Husky Terminal Shore Power Project.
61 FY09 ARRA National Grant. Port of Tacoma. Retrofit two ocean-going vessels: add certified ship-side technology.
14
-------
Port Name
Vessel Types
First Year of
Installation
Maximum
Capacity (MW)
Average Annual
Usage
Voltage (kV)
Manufacturer
High Voltage
Port Miami62,63*
Cruise
2023, Planned
Galveston64
Cruise
2023, Planned
Philadelphia65
Container
Planned
Low Voltage
Seattle66
Fishing
0.096
up to 180 days
0.480
Boston67,68*
Fishing
2011
0.045
up to 300 days
132.7 MWh
Cooper| Crouse-
Hinds
New Bedford69,70*
Fishing and
Offshore support
2011
0.0264
up to 330 days
-12,450 MWh
0.220
Local Utility
Philadelphia71
Tug
Baltimore
Tug
0.250
daily
0.480
Los Angeles / Long
Beach72*
Tug
2009
0.3402
340.2 kWh daily
Fourchon73
Offshore support
vessels
2020
0.440
Port Lake Charles74
Tug
2021
1,490 MWh
0.440
Swinomish Indian
Tribal Community,
WA75*
Fishing
2013
2,000 - 3,000 MWh
0.440
0.220
0.110
* Data provided by Watts Marine
* Denotes installations partially funded by EPA's Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) Program
62 Miami-Dade County, Miami-Dade County Major Daniella Levine Cava Announces Commitment with Carnival Cruise Line for Shore Power Pilot at Port Miami. March 19,
2021. https://www.miamidade.gov/releases/2021-03-19-portmiami-shore-power.asp
63 FY21 DERA National Grant, Miami-Dade County's Seaport Department. Port Miami Shore Power Pilot Program.
64 Port of Galveston, Port Going Green with Major Environmental Programs. July 22, 2021. https://www.portofgalveston.com/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=180
65 Philadelphia Regional Port Authority, Port Development Plan March 2017, https://www.philaport.eom/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Philadelphia-Port-Development-300Mill-
UPDATE.pdf.
66 Personal Communication: Ellen Watson, Port of Seattle.
67 Massport, Massport Receives $100,000 Stimulus Grant to Extend Shore Power at Boston Fish Pier and Cut Vessel Emissions. March 18, 2009.
https://www.massport.com/massport/media/newsroom/massport-receives-100-000-stimulus-grant-to-extend-shore-power-at-boston-fish-pier-and-cut-vessel-emissions/
68 FY08 DERA National Grant, Massachusetts Port Authority, Electrification of Fish Pier Vessel Berths in South Boston, Massachusetts.
69 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.
70 FY09 DERA National Grant, Harbor Development Commission. Port of New Bedford Shore-side Power Electrification Project.
71 ICF. Tug/towboat emission reduction feasibility study: Draft final report. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2009.
72 FY09 DERA National Grant, City of Los Angeles Harbor Department. Flex-Grid System for Alternative Maritime Power Project.
73 Darryl Richard, Entergy Newsroom, Plugging into Entergy's Shore Power Program. Feb 1, 2021. https://www.entergvnewsroom.com/article/plugging-into-entergy-s-shore-
power-program-t-d-world-magazine/
74 Port of Lake Charles, Port Partners with Crowley Maine, Entergy Louisiana to Reduce Local Emissions through Shore Power August 23,2021, https://portlc.com/news/port-
partners-with-crowlev-marine-entergv-louisiana-to-reduce-local-emissions-through-shore-power/. Usage estimated based on reported annual savings of 500 tonnes CO2 and
eGRID grid emissions factor for Port Lake Charles region (740.36 lb/MWh).
75 FY13 DERA National Grant, The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community. The Swinomish Marine Engine Repower and Fish Plant Shore Power Project.
15
-------
3.6 Usage and Price
Table 2 summarizes vessel activity at high-voltage shore power terminals and the price for connecting to shore power. Low-voltage
activity and pricing is shown in Table 3. Recent publicly available information was evaluated to assess activity levels, but complete
information was not available for all ports, indicated by blank cells. To quantify cruise activity at the ports of Juneau, Brooklyn,
Seattle, and San Diego cruise schedules were cross referenced with lists of shore power-equipped cruise vessels and port-published
statistics. The number of shore power connections at the Port of San Francisco was estimated using CARB-documented calculations.
Calls at Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland were estimated based on the most recently published vessel call data from the ports.
Service prices for connecting to shore power were obtained from various sources shown in the footnotes.
Table 2: Vessel activity and service price at high-voltage shore power facilities in the United States.
(Values in bold show updated data from the 2017 Shore Power Technology Assessment at U.S. Ports)76
Capacity
Port
Name
Vessel Types
Using Shore
Power
# Shore Power
Berths
# Unique
Shore Power
Vessels
Annual Shore
Power Calls
Total Calls on
Shore Power-
Capable Berths
(year)
Service Price
High
Voltage
Juneau
Cruise
2
49
213
584 (2019)77
P: $0.0592/kWh OP:
$0.0555/kWh78
Seattle
Cruise
2 79
10 (2019)
85 (2019)
148 (2019)
P: $0.0867/kWh OP:
$0.0572/kWh8°
San
Francisco
81
Cruise
1
20
49
81 (2017)
Peak Summer Rate
$58.304/meter-day
+ $17.39/kW demand
+ $0.1333/kWh energy82
Brooklyn
Cruise
1
2
3483
35 (2019)
$0.12/kWh ($0.26/kWh to deliver)
76 EPA. Shore Power Technology Assessment at U.S. Ports. 2017 https://www.epa.gov/ports-initiative/shore-power-technology-assessment-us-ports.
77 City and Borough of Juneau. CBJ Dock Electrification Fact Sheet, https://iuneau.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019-l 1-23-JCOS-CBJ-Dock-Electrification-Backgrounder-
Fact-Sheet-l-2-19.pdf. Juneau has also discussed plans to electrify a starboard-side berth to increase connection options.
78 For Juneau electricity rates from Alaska Electric Light & Power Co.. see https://www.aelp.com/Customer-Service/Rates-Billing/Current-Rates. P denotes peak energy rates:
OP denotes off-peak energy rates. Additional peak demand charges of $13.85/kW and off-peak demand charges of $8.82/kW also apply. Cruise terminal rates were assumed to
fall under the large commercial service category and may not reflect negotiated rates.
79 Seattle is building a new shore power connection at Pier 66.
8° por por( 0f Seattle electricity rates from Seattle City Light, see https://www.seattle.gov/city-light/business-solutions/business-billing-and-account-information/business-
rates#seattlebusinesses. P denotes peak energy rates: OP denotes off-peak energy rates. Additional peak demand charges of $3.85/kW and off-peak demand charges of
$0.27/kW also apply. Cruise terminal rates were assumed to fall under the High Demand General Service categoiy for facilities with a maximum monthly demand equal to or
greater than 10,000 kW in the City of Seattle.
81 CARB, CARB Staff Analysis of Potential Emission Reduction Strategies by Port/Terminal/Berth for Passenger Vessels. May 2019.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-Q4/cruiseanalvsis ADA.pdf
82 PG&E Electric Schedule E-20. Service to customers with maximum demands of 1.000 kW or more. https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/ELEC SCHEDS E-
20.pdf. Accessed August 12. 2022.
83 Thirty-four cruise calls scheduled for 2022. The Queen Maiy 2 and the Caribbean Princess. Enchanted Princess, and Coral Princess are currently listed as able to plug into
shore power, https://www.nvtimes.com/2019/12/26/nvregion/cruise-ship-exhaust-shore-power-nvc.html.
16
-------
Capacity
Port
Name
Vessel Types
Using Shore
Power
# Shore Power
Berths
# Unique
Shore Power
Vessels
Annual Shore
Power Calls
Total Calls on
Shore Power-
Capable Berths
(year)
Service Price
Container
7984
231
629
927 (2020)
AMP: $150 service charge +
$1.43/kW facilities charge +
$0.07511/kWh energy charge
(additional charges may be
applied—see the source)85
AMP-B: AMP + $10,000
minimum monthly charge
(additional charges may be—see
the source; no facilities charge)
Angeles
Cruise
2
20
47
92
Cruise
1
81
2018* (2013)
Varies; each terminal equipped
with shore power has its own
account and rate structure with
High
Voltage
Long
Beach
Container
15
125
Tanker
1
16
Southern California Edison
San
Diego
Cruise
2 85
4
16
87 (2012)
Oakland
Container
19
518
commissioned
87
591
848* (2021)
$267 /hour88 + $31/hour
maintenance rate
Hueneme
Reefer
3
391*
Tacoma89
Container
3
45
47* (2019)
$83.25 per month +
$0.11944/kWh90
* Denotes total port-wide vessel calls, not specific to shore power-equipped berths or terminal.
84 Seventy-nine total AMP vaults as of 2020. https://www.portoflosangeles.org/environment/air-quality/alternative-maritime-power-(amp)
85 Port of LA AMP Special Commercial industrial rates, https://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/faces/ladwp/aboutus/a-financesandreports/a-fr-electricrates/a-fr-er-
spcommindrates? adf.ctrl-
state=vsue09i9n 4& afrLoop=35682275737481& afrWindowMode=0& afrWindowId=izrb4g76g 18#%40%3F afrWindowId%3Dizrb4g76g 18%26 afrLoop%3D356822
75737481%26 afrWindowMode%3D0%26 adf.ctrl-state%3Dizrb4g76g 42
86 Second berth anticipated to be completed in 2022. https://www.portofsandiego.org/press-releases/general-press-releases/port-san-diego-awards-contract-double-cruise-ship-
shore-power
87 Oakland List of Shore Power Vessels https://ldrv.ms/x/s! AvlUF4vuwRKbs2F4s_Jld-Sq3qbv?e=BCdhel. Accessed April 11. 2022.
88 Port of Oakland. Shore Power. June 2021. https://www.oaklandseaport.com/development-programs/shore-power/
89 West Coast Collaborative. DERA 2019: Northwest Seaport Alliance - Husky Terminal Shore Power Project, https://westcoastcollaborative.org/files/grants/2019/dera2019-
northwest-seaport-alliance-huskv-terminal-shorepower-proiect.pdf
https://www.nwseaportalliance.com/environment/clean-air/investing-cleaner-air
90 Tacoma Power Schedule SP Shore Power Service. April 1. 2022, https://www.mvtpu.org/wp-content/uploads/SP 2022.pdf
17
-------
Table 3: Vessel activity and service price at low-voltage shore power facilities in the U.S.
(Values in bold show updated data from the 2017 Shore Power Technology Assessment at U.S. Ports)
Capacity
Port Name
Vessel Types
Using Shore
Power
# Shore Power
Berths
# Unique Shore
Power Vessels
Annual Shore
Power Calls
Total Calls on
Shore Power-
Capable Berths
(year)
Service Price
Low
Voltage
Seattle
Fishing
300
$0.080/kWh91
Boston92
Fishing
18
13
$0.045/kWh93
New Bedford94
Fishing and
Service
50
$0.059/kWh95
Philadelphia
Tug
Baltimore
Tug
3
3
Daily
Los Angeles /
Long Beach
Tug
1
2
Daily
Port Fourchon
Offshore
Workboat/
Platform
support vessels
12
Port Lake
Charles
Tug
Swinomish
Indian Tribal
Community, WA
Fishing
36
91 Shore power hookups at Fisherman's Wharf were assumed to fall under the Medium Standard General Service categoiy 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 $4.01/kW also apply. Note that this is the publicly offered rate and the
port may have negotiated an alternate rate.
92 Massport, Massport Receives $100,000 Stimulus Grant to Extend Shore Power at Boston Fish Pier and Cut Vessel Emissions. March 18, 2009.
https://www.massport.com/massport/media/newsroom/massport-receives-100-000-stimulus-grant-to-extend-shore-power-at-boston-fish-pier-and-cut-vessel-emissions/
93 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
$10.59/kW apply along with monthly customer charge of $18.00. See source for additional charges, https://www.eversource.com/content/docs/default-source/rates-tariffs/ema-
greater-boston-rates .pdf?sfvrsn=c2 7ef362 5 4
94 Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, New Bedford Maine Commercial Terminal, https://www.masscec.com/our-focus/offshore-wind/new-bedford-marine-commerce-terminal-
nbmct
95 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) categoiy for non-residential customers with load not exceeding 100 kW. Demand charges of $5.38/kW occur over 10 kW along with monthly customer charges,
transmission charges, and others. https://www.eversource.com/content/docs/default-source/rates-tariffs/ema-south-shore-rates.pdf?sivrsn=cd7ef362 40
18
-------
3.7 Time At-Berth
The U.S. Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) provides
time at-berth for container tanker, and RORO vessels96 at the ports of Long Beach, New York
and New Jersey, Seattle and Tacoma, and Los Angeles (Table 4). Cruise time at berth was
derived from port emission inventories, where available. RORO vessels consistently spend the
least amount of time at-berth. At Long Beach, container vessel at-berth times increased as vessel
size (i.e., capacity) increased.97 Similarly, time at-berth for container vessels at the Port of New
York and New Jersey increased from 20 hours for a 1,000 twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU)
vessel, to 60 hours for a 13,000 TEU vessel.98 Cruise and container at-berth times at the ports of
Seattle and Tacoma are consistent with those observed at the Port of New York and New
Jersey.99
Table 4: Average time at berth (hrs) by port and vessel type for select U.S. ports in 2020.
Vessel Type
POLB
NY/NJ
Seattle
Tacoma
POLA
Container
54.3
31.6
32.0
43.1
61.8
Tanker
36.1
38.1
NA
NA
37.7
RORO
21.5
21.4
NA
18.1
21.5
Cruise
32.1100
16101
8-10102
NA
36.7103
Dwell time data, by vessel type, averaged over the top 25 U.S. ports are available from the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics.104 The data were reported in hours for 2020, the most recent
year of complete data available. Note: the year 2020 was not a typical year for cruise and other
vessels due to the COVID-19 world-wide pandemic. Table 5 presents these data.
Table 5: Average time at-berth by vessel type at top 25 U.S. ports.
Vessel type
Average time at-berth (hrs.)
Container
28.1
Crude Oil Tanker
41.4
RORO
23
96 BTS Vessel Dwell Times. https://data.bts.gov/stories/sA/essel-Dwell-Times/4kd6-2t87. Accessed April 11. 2022.
97 Port of Long Beach Air Emissions Inventory 2020, October 2021. https://polb.com/download/14/emissions-
inventorv/12958/2020-air-emissions-inventorv.pdf
98 Port Authority of NY&NJ.2020 Multi-Facility Emissions Inventory. December 2021.
https://www.panvni.gov/content/dam/port/our-port/clean-vessel-incentive-
program/FINAL%20PANYNT%202020%20Multi%20Facilitv%20EI%20Report.pdf
99 Starcrest. (2013). 2011 Puget Sound maritime air emissions inventoiy (May 2013 update). Prepared for Puget Sound
Maritime Air Forum.
100 Port of Long Beach Air Emissions Inventoiy 2020, October 2021. https://polb.com/download/14/emissions-
inventorv/12958/2020-air-emissions-inventorv.pdf
101 Port Authority of NY&NJ.2020 Multi-Facility Emissions Inventory. December 2021.
https://www.panvni.gov/content/dam/port/our-port/clean-vessel-incentive-
program/FINAL%20PANYNT%202020%20Multi%20Facilitv%20EI%20Report.pdf
102 Port of Seattle. Questions about Cruise Ship Emissions at Berth, https://www.portseattle.org/blog/questions-about-cruise-
ship-emissions-berth. July 12. 2021.
103 Port of LA Air Emissions Inventory. Version 2. 2021. https://www.portoflosangeles.org/environment/air-qualitv/air-
emissions-inventorv
104 BTS Vessel Dwell Times. https://data.bts.gOv/stories/s/Vessel-Dwell-Times/4kd6-2t87
19
-------
3.8 Costs and Benefits
This study does not contain a comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits of shore power.
However, certain observations from various studies performed by CARB and for particular ports
are noteworthy. A summary of published studies examining various aspects of the economic and
environmental costs and benefits of shore power is included as Appendix A. Section 4 presents
new port case studies that include useful information on costs. Benefit-cost ratios will vary by
port, based on the cost differential of bunker fuels and local electricity prices, including demand
charges and connection fees. Expansion of shore power to new ports, and greater shore power
availability at ports currently offering shore power, increases the benefit to vessels without
increasing costs to vessels that already utilize shore power. Improvements to the grid, including
low pollution generation sources and increased resilience, further benefit shore power and other
electrification efforts at ports.
The 2020 CARB "Control Measure for Ocean-Going Vessels At Berth" cite that these
regulations will improve health benefits for California communities impacted by port operations.
Specifically, by 2032, total costs for all entities to implement the rule will exceed $2.23 billion,
while health benefits in that time add up to $2.32 billion from avoided adverse health
1 OR
outcomes.
Vaishnav et al. (2016) determined that for the U.S., nationwide shore power has the potential to
produce a net benefit to society of up to $33 million annually considering both costs and health
benefits. Gillingham and Huang (2020) used a general equilibrium model of the U.S. energy
system to estimate the net benefits of using shore power. Their analysis found that shore power
fuel costs, which are generally higher than equivalent marine fuel costs, are largely offset by
significant social benefits stemming from improved local air quality and reduced carbon
emissions, suggesting the cost-benefit ratio is approximately neutral.
Estimates from the International Council on Clean Transportation106 for vessels using shore
power at the Port of Shenzhen found marginal abatement costs of $2,300 per tonne of CO2 and
up to $56,000 per metric ton of NOx and $290,000 per metric ton of SOx abated. Analysis by
CARB accompanying the At-Berth Regulation found that more than 2.4 million people, of which
approximately 1.5 million live in disadvantaged communities, would have their potential cancer
risk reduced.
At current bunker prices, the marine industry contends shippers are less likely to opt for shore
power than marine gas oil (MGO) use due to the high up-front vessel commissioning costs
(annual certification that the vessel is able to properly connect to the system), cost of purchasing
electricity while in port, connection fees, and the availability of other, lower cost emission
reduction options such as capture and control systems that scrub exhaust gases to reduce engine
emissions. However, currently there is only one capture and control system that is approved only
for OGV containers by CARB.107 Maersk specifically claims that shore power is not a cost-
105 CARB, Control Measure for Ocean-Going Vessels At Berth, 2020. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ocean-going-
vessels-berth-regulation/resources
106 ICCT, Costs and Benefits of Shore Power at the Port of Shenzhen. December 2015.
https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT-WCtr ShorePower 201512a.pdf
107 CARB At Berth Regulation Executive Orders: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/berth-regulation-executive-orders
20
-------
effective emissions reduction strategy for vessels calling at U.S. ports for short periods of
time.108 However, if marine fuel prices rise relative to electricity prices, then shore power may
become more favorable. Note that the break-even point can vary by vessel and port depending
upon the price of fuel paid by the vessel, and electricity rates, peak demand charges, and
connection fees which can vary significantly between ports.
3.9 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.109 The iENCON program mainly focuses on energy reductions while
vessels are 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.
The U.S. Navy's Ship Energy Conservation Awards help promote energy conservation within
the Department of the Navy. All ships are encouraged to participate, and innovative and efficient
energy management practices are rewarded. Energy savings from "cold ironing" (an alternate
term for shore power) are specifically identified as a primary criterion, alongside overall energy
savings, innovation, and awareness and training.
The Port of San Francisco 2013 Emissions Inventory110 lists five U.S. Navy vessels using shore
power while docked at Pier 70 for maintenance. The average at-berth electric load for these
vessels was between 497 kW and 790 kW, with at berth times ranging from eight to 192 hours.
Total naval energy use at San Francisco's Pier 70 was approximately 284,000 kWh in 2013.
There are some significant differences between the U.S. Navy and commercial ports use of shore
power. Naval vessel power demand at berth 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.
3.10 CARB's Shore Power Regulations
Shore power is installed at approximately 65 berths at ports in California. CARB has developed
the At-Berth Regulation to regulate shore power usage in the State of California.111 Existing At-
Berth Regulations apply to around 4,000 vessel calls from container, reefer, and cruise vessels at
the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, San Francisco, San Diego, and Hueneme. The
108 American Shipper. (2014). Shore power disruptor?
109 U.S. Navy. (2015). iENCON: Incentivized shipboard energy conservation.
110 ENVIRON. (2015a). Port of San Francisco seaport air emissions inventory 2013. Prepared for the Port of San
Francisco.
111 Information in this section is derived in part from communications with representatives from CARB. We thank
them for their input.
21
-------
Regulation would expand the existing requirements to include vehicle carriers (e.g., RORO) and
tanker vessels, reducing emissions from a further 2,300 or more vessel calls. The estimated
benefits of the At-Berth Regulation include decreased health risk to port-adjacent populations by
virtue of reduced emissions from shore power connected vessels.112 The Regulation is estimated
to cost $2.23 billion, and the benefits of avoided adverse health effects are valued at $2.32
billion. CARB suggests that the costs are reasonable when considered over individual units of
freight, at $1.14 per TEU, $4.65 per cruise passenger, $7.66 per automobile, and less than $0.01
per gallon of finished oil product.
3.10.1 CARB Regulation: Ocean-Going Vessels and Shore Power
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. Since 2014, at-berth emissions from container, reefer, and cruise vessels have
been subject to the At-Berth Regulation. CARB estimates that the existing regulation results in
an 80% reduction of criteria pollutant emissions from around 4,000 individual vessels in 2020.113
CARB has updated the existing At-Berth Regulation with a set of new Regulations114 that
expand the scope of the past regulation to increase the public health and environmental benefits
by including additional vessel types and increasing the number of shore power calls at California
ports. The new Regulation expands requirements to include tankers and RORO vessels.
Many of California's ports are located in or near at-risk communities that directly benefit from
emissions reductions associated with the use of shore power. The Regulation shifts the burden of
regulatory compliance from the vessel operator to a shared responsibility between the vessel and
terminal operators. Furthermore, the At-Berth Regulation contributes to meeting California's
greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.
Under the Regulation, vessel operators are required to plug into shore power on 100% of calls to
a terminal or use an approved alternative control measure (CARB Approved Emission Control
Strategy, or CAECS), such as bonnet capture and control systems, to achieve emissions
reductions equivalent to those obtained from plugging into shore power. In order to be approved,
emission control strategies must be demonstrated to achieve emission rates of less than 2.8
g/kWh for NOx, 0.03 g/kWh for PM2.5, and 0.1 g/kWh for reactive organic gases115.
Furthermore, alternative emission control strategies must be grid-neutral based on the year of
approval, meaning the strategy shall not emit more GHG emissions than if powered by the
California grid. For tankers with steam-driven pumps not using shore power, a CAECS must be
demonstrated to achieve emission rates less than 0.4 g/kWh for NOx, 0.03 g/kWh for PM2.5, and
0.02 g/kWh for reactive organic gases from tanker auxiliary boilers. CARB projects that CAECS
112 CARB, Control Measure for Ocean-Going Vessels At-Berth, August 26, 2020. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-
sheets/control-measure-ocean-going-vessels-berth
113 CARB, Control Measure for Ocean-Going Vessels At-Berth, August 26, 2020. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-
sheets/control-measure-ocean-going-vessels-berth
114 Full text for the Final Regulation Order and supporting information for the At-Berth Regulation are available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2019/ogvatberth 2019.
115 Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) means Total Organic Gases (TOG) minus ARB's "exempt" compounds (e.g., methane,
ethane, CFCs, etc.). Fact Sheet: Development of Organic Emission Estimates for California's Emission Inventory and Air
Quality Models https://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/speciate/factsheets model ei speciation tog 8 OO.pdf
22
-------
systems will be the primary compliance pathway for tankers due to safety and operational
constraints associated with retrofitting vessels, and because tanker auxiliary boilers and the
steam pumps they drive cannot be operated using shore power without extensive retrofitting and
replacement with electric-powered boilers.
The compliance start dates under the new Regulations vary by vessel type, with rules affecting
container, cruise, and refrigerated cargo vessels going into effect on January 1, 2023.
Compliance for RORO vessels will follow starting on January 1, 2025. Compliance start dates
for tankers are differentiated between vessels calling at the San Pedro Bay Ports (i.e., the ports of
Los Angeles and Long Beach), for which the new rules go into effect on January 1, 2025, and all
remaining ports, for which the new rules go into effect on January 1, 2027.
The At-Berth Regulation also includes a provision to allow for Innovative Concepts (IC) for
emission abatement equivalent to the CAECS standards. The IC provision was requested by
industry and allows for regulated entities to use CARB-approved strategies to offset emissions
from vessels at-berth for up to five years. IC strategies are open-ended in scope and may include
land-based measures that are unrelated to vessel activity, such as locomotive engine upgrades or
other abatement strategies. Emissions reductions from IC must be demonstrated to be equivalent
to or greater than emissions reductions from shore power and be verifiable and enforceable.
Applications for ICs were due on December 1, 2021, and new applications for IC strategies will
not be considered after that date under the current rule.
Terminal Incident Events (TIEs) are exceptions provided to terminal operators that allow for a
limited number of calls where the vessel does not use shore power, or another control measure,
as required. Vessel Incident Events (VIEs) are exceptions provided to vessel fleets that allow for
a limited number of calls where the vessel operator does not use shore power or another
approved control measure during the call. The number of TIEs and VIEs available to each fleet
will be granted by CARB at the start of each year. TIEs and VIEs must be reported by the
terminal or vessel operators, respectively. The number of TIEs and VIEs granted by CARB is
based on a percentage of the fleet vessel visits, to be determined based on the 2021 fleet baseline.
The number of TIEs granted will be capped at 15% for the first two years of the Regulation
(2023-2024), falling to 5% thereafter. The number of VIEs granted will be set at 5% of the fleet
from the outset of the regulation, as it applies to different vessel types, with VIEs being granted
at a rate of 5% per year for tankers calling at the San Pedro Bay Ports and ROROs calling at all
ports in 2025. VIEs will be granted for tankers calling at other ports starting in 2027,
corresponding to the year in which the regulation goes into effect for those vessels at those ports
(San Pedro Bay Ports January 1, 2025, and all other ports January 1, 2027.)
At time of this publication CARB is further evaluating their proposal to clarify the amendments
with respect to the penetration of zero-emission and cleaner combustion technologies, while
minimizing the economic impact on CHC owners and operators, especially to small businesses
and fleets. CARB is seeking public comment with a "Second Notice of Public Availability of
Modified Text and Availability of Additional Documents and Information"116
116 CARB's Second Notice of Public Availability of Modified Text and Availability of Additional Documents and Information
on CHC posted October 10, 2022: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2021/chc2021/2ndl5davnotice.pdf
23
-------
4 Case Studies and Lessons Learned
This section presents the results of conversations with CARB and selected ports regarding their
ongoing shore power operations, including best practices from California Air Resources Board
and lessons learned from; two ports in California, the ports of Los Angeles and Hueneme; one
port in the Pacific Northwest, the Port of Seattle; and the Port of New York & New Jersey in the
Northeast. These ports were chosen for its geographic diversity and its size and types of vessels
visiting its port.
CARB Best Practices
• Ports should standardize processes for: commissioning of ships for shore power, plug-
in approval systems and electric rates.
• Some ports can use Advanced Qualified Unlading Approval (AQUA) Lane117 - a key
item in the pre-approval system to aid in quicker shore power plug-in which saves a lot
of time for repeat ships.
• Communication with port and vessel for proper ship alignment before it arrives.
• Clear instructions and training in relevant languages for shore power personnel to
ensure safe and efficient shore power connections.
• Planning for and adding additional connections at terminal.
4.1 Port of Los Angeles
The Port of Los Angeles is located at the southern waterfront of the City of Los Angeles, sharing
San Pedro Bay with the Port of Long Beach. In 2019 the port was visited by over 1,800 vessels
(all types).118 Most of this traffic was container ships, but it is also a major terminal for cruise
ships and automobile carriers.119 Vessels calling at the Port of Los Angeles are subject to the
CARB's At-Berth Regulations for shore power. The Port of Los Angeles refers to shore power as
Alternative Maritime Power, or AMP. The port has been operating shore power since 2004 and
showed compliance levels of 79% for container and reefer ships in 2020.120
117 CTPAT, Advanced Qualified Unlading Approval Lane. January 7. 2022,
https://www.cbp. gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2022-
Mav/Aqua%201ane%20FINAL%20PBRB%20approved%201%2019%2022%20%28002%29.pdf
118 Port of LA Annual Facts and Figures Card. 2021, https://www.portoflosangeles.org/business/statistics/facts-and-figures
119 Port of Los Angeles. (2014). Comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal year ended June 30. 2014.
120 Information in this section is derived in part from communications with representatives from the Port of Los Angeles. We
thank them for their input.
24
-------
Port of Los Angeles Lessons Learned
• Interaction between the port and regulatory agencies is critical for the development of
policies that consider the demands of the commercial waterfront and are actionable
and enforceable.
• The final shore power system design needs to provide flexibility in the location of the
shore power connection cables to ensure that vessels of all sizes can connect.
• The capacity assumptions used in planning the shore power system need to account
for future demands, not only the current vessel fleet, but other pending
decarbonization initiatives.
• Tankers are anticipated to utilize capture and control devices in lieu of plugging into
shore power due to feasibility of electrification of boilers and pumps and issues of
safety.
4.1.1 Challenges and Opportunities
When shore power was initially developed at the Port of Los Angeles, the relationship between
shipping lines and terminals was more distinct, with specific lines generally calling at specific
terminals. This allowed for planning the layout of the shore power systems to meet the needs of a
relatively well-defined and consistent set of vessels at each terminal. Over time, changes in
alliances among the shipping lines have led to vessels calling at alternate terminals, and so the
shore power systems that were initially planned are now sometimes misaligned with the layout of
the new vessels now calling at those terminals.
Adding new shore power connection boxes to the terminal docks (also referred to as terminal
aprons) is costly and not typically welcomed by terminal tenants. Mobile connectors with cable
reels could allow for greater flexibility in connections, as the system may be moved along the
Figure 5: Mobile shore power cable reel (left) and vessel connection (right) at the Port of Los Angeles
Source: Port of Los Angeles
bull rail (i.e., guard rail at the edge of the dock) as needed. Such systems cost approximately
$250,000 and require ample clearance along the rail. In cases where there is adequate clearance,
tenants may purchase a small shore power "box" and mount it along the rail at a convenient
location, then tie back into the main connection. This approach has its challenges, however, as
25
-------
cable management and safety concerns arise when crews are working overtop the shore power
cables.
At first, cruise terminals at the Port of Los Angeles were designed with 6.6 kV shore power
systems. However, cruise vessels calling at the port were typically equipped with 11 kV systems,
which was more common among larger cruise vessels, so the shore power systems required
upgrades to accommodate vessels with either 6.6 kV or 11 kV systems. In order to accommodate
both voltage systems, the transformer serving the shore power systems was upgraded to provide
constant voltage. The transformer upgrade process lasted around 18 months, starting in 2019,
during which time the shore power system was unavailable to cruise vessels calling at the port.
Another challenge for the port is the vehicle carrier/RORO vessel shore power systems, the
international plug standard has not yet been established and it is unclear whether the standard
will adopt 6.6 kV systems, which are more common in the United States, or 11 kV systems,
which are more common in Europe.
Port of Los Angeles engineering personnel planned extensively for the initial development of the
shore power systems. Large private and port investments were supported by California
Proposition IB funding for the initial shore power installations. Port staff were involved with
developing the international IEEE/IEC/ISO 80005 standards for shore power, as well as the
regulatory process at the IMO and with other ports around the world to unify the process and
ensure that the port was up to date and engaged with the international requirements.
4.1.2 Planning
The Port of Los Angeles is preparing for the CARB At-Berth Regulation update, expanding the
number of vessel types covered to include tankers and RORO vessels. Planning for RORO
systems is ongoing, though early indications are that 6.6 kV shore power systems are most likely
to be used at RORO terminals as these vessels also call at other terminals around the world that
serve container vessels.
Tanker operators expressed concerns regarding the safety of retrofitting shore power to their
vessels, though those concerns do not extend to new builds. Therefore, tankers calling at the Port
of Los Angeles are most likely to use capture and control systems to achieve emissions
reductions equivalent to shore power. Alternative capture and control technologies generally
operate by extending a bonnet on a boom arm that reaches up and over the stack to capture
exhaust emissions. Currently the port has a single barge-based system that uses a tug to position
the barge next to the vessel (Figure 6). The system is currently only certified by CARB to treat
container vessels. This barge-based system is currently shared between the Port of Los Angeles
and the Port of Long Beach.
26
-------
Figure 6: Barge-based capture and control system operating at the Port of Los Angeles
(Source: Port of Los Angeles)
4.1.3 Infrastructure and Utility
Shore power electricity at the Port of Los Angeles is provided by the Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power (LADWP), subject to "Special Commercial/Industrial Rates." The shore power
systems at the Port of Los Angeles are served by a 34.5 kV substation. Shore power loads are
metered separately from other loads, and metering occurs on the primary side of the transformer,
or on the secondary side of the transformer compensating for transformer losses, which can be
significant.
The LADWP has the discretion to interrupt service to the shore power system with 30 minutes'
notice. Interruptions are unlimited in frequency and duration when the operating reserves on the
system are inadequate to maintain system energy supply. In previous summers the Port has
paused shore power capabilities to vessels due to the State of California Emergency
Proclamation for extreme heatwaves and wildfires.
Shore power at the Port of Los Angeles is divided into two rate schedules, AMP and AMP-B,
which are both billed monthly to the port. The port then passes the LADWP bill to the respective
terminal operator who then bills the individual shipping lines for the portion of the total used by
their vessels. AMP- B applies to vessels with maximum demand not less than 7 MW per month
and the AMP schedule applies to all other vessels. The top-level breakdown for the two rate
schedules is shown in Table 6. The rate structures differ between the two billing schedules, and
not all rate categories apply to both AMP and AMP-B. Charges are comprised of monthly
service charges, energy charges, and adjustments. AMP service is billed with a monthly service
charge and a per kW facilities charge, in addition to energy charges and adjustments. AMP-B
service has a monthly service charge and a minimum monthly charge of $10,000 and no facilities
charge, in addition to energy charges and adjustments.
27
-------
Shore power charges at the Port of Los Angeles are also subject to adjustment factors published
by LADWP,121 as well as reactive energy charges for metered ($/kVArh)122 and unmetered as
dollars per kilowatt-hour($/kWh) service. Reactive energy charges range from $0.00014/kWh to
$0.00027/kWh for unmetered service and $0.00042/kVArh to $0.00513/kVArh for power factors
ranging from 0.95 to zero, respectively. As shown in Table 7, rates are consistent for AMP and
AMP-B service, with the exception of facilities charges and minimum monthly charges. For the
comparison, "Large Commercial and Multi-Family Service (34.5 kV)" for 2021 is also shown in
Table 8, with reactive energy charges and adjustment factors available from LADWP (see
footnote 51 and 79).
Table 6: AMP and AMP-B rates for shore power from LADWP.
Rate Category
AMP
AMP-B
Large Commercial and
Multi-Family Service
Monthly Service Charge
$150.00
$150.00
$75.00
Minimum monthly charge
-
$10,000.00
-
Facilities Charge ($/kW)
$1.43
-
$4.56
Energy Charge ($/kWh)
$0.07511
$0.07511
$0.03798
High/Low Peak ($/kWh)
-
-
$0.05464
High Peak Demand Charge ($/kW)
-
-
$4.30
Energy Cost Adjustment ($/kWh)
$0.05690
$0.05690
-
Electric Subsidy Adjustment
($/kW)
$0.46
$0.46
-
Reliability Cost Adjustment
($/kWh)
$0,003
$0,003
-
4.1.4 Commissioning and Labor
Vessels are required to be commissioned by the port before they can plug in to the AMP system.
The commissioning process123 requires the vessel to be IEC/ISO/IEEE 80005-1 compliant, or to
have been previously accepted for use of the port's AMP system. The commissioning process
involves visually inspecting the system following a checklist, as well as verifying the operating
functionality of the connection and cable management systems. Commissioning also requires
testing the correct functionality of control equipment and protection devices on the ship and on
shore.
121 Details of AMP service from LADWP may be found by visiting www.ladwp.com and searching for "AMP" in the search
box. then selecting "Special Commercial / Industrial Rates" from the search results.
122 kVArh: kilo-volt ampere reactive hours. Reactive power is power that flows back to the grid during passive phases.
123 Port of Los Angeles System Safety Verification High Voltage Shore Connection (HVSC)
https://kentico.portoflosangeles.org/getmedia/b05ac7cl-5c7c-4b2d-9f72-al65d6416el7/AMP System Safev Verification
28
-------
4.2 Port of Hueneme
The Port of Hueneme is located in Ventura County in Southern California, approximately 60
miles northwest of the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.124 The port provides intermodal
connections with total trade valued at $8.75 billion in 2020. Top import and export commodities
include refrigerated produce, motor vehicles and parts, textiles and textile products, and heavy
machinery.125 The port started providing shore power to visiting vessels in 2014.
Port of Hueneme Lessons Learned
• Interaction between the port and regulatory agencies is critical for the development of
policies that consider the demands of the commercial waterfront and are actionable
and enforceable.
• Smaller ports experience significant limitations and challenges obtaining funding for
feasibility studies and planning, as well as for shore power infrastructure.
• Shore power has helped the port deliver emissions reductions for the local community,
which is noticed when vessels do not connect.
• Engaging in early, often, and open dialogue with the utility is critical to ensure that the
needs of the shore power system are met without detriment to the local community.
• Stocking critical spare parts and engaging in regular routine maintenance has helped
the port to avoid long delays and parts shortages, allowing them to keep the shore
power system operational.
• Providing high voltage system technical training to operators is critical for
maintaining shore power operations.
4.2.1 Challenges and Opportunities
The Port of Hueneme installed shore power in compliance with the CARB At-Berth Regulations,
adopting an early version of Cavotec's shore power system. Representatives from the Port of
Hueneme reported challenges sourcing parts to service their system and identified a lack of
competition in the shore power equipment industry as a contributing factor for the difficulty
maintaining the system. Port representatives reported that parts of their system, which is an
earlier version than those currently offered, are insufficiently equipped for the marine
environment and the rigors of a working waterfront. Vaults and boxes accumulate moisture,
requiring regular outlet maintenance. The port has adopted the practice of keeping spare parts for
critical components in storage and is experimenting with 3-D printing of its own parts, to
alleviate issues with sourcing and parts availability. The Port of Hueneme has entered into a
quarterly maintenance contract with Cavotec and is now experiencing fewer moisture issues with
the regular maintenance schedule.
The Port of Hueneme is also in the process of electrifying cargo handling equipment, and other
systems under regulations separate from the At-Berth Regulation. However, the shore power
system and associated infrastructure at the port is subject to a State mandated tariff that requires
124 Information in this section is derived in part from communications with representatives from the Port of Hueneme. We thank
them for their input.
125 port Hueneme (2015). Port of Hueneme: Vessel Schedule. Retrieved from http://www.portofhueneme.org/vesselschedule/
29
-------
that the infrastructure be used only for OGV shore power. As such, the planned developments for
additional electrification would not be able to tie into the shore power infrastructure,
complicating the electrification process and requiring the installation of additional electrical
infrastructure with different plug and voltage standards. Each of these separate sets of
infrastructure require coordination with the utility and corresponding electrical service requests.
"Environmental sustainability is a top priority for the Port and this iargest emissions
redaction project in county history represents oar commitment to being a good neighbor by
being a strong environmental steward. " said Port Commission President Dr. Manuel Lopez.
"Over the lifetime of this project (30 years), annual emissions from refrigerated cargo vessels
also known as "reefer vessels " will be significantly reduced. " Anticipated reductions include
a 92% reduction in PM. 98% reduction in NOx. and a 55% reduction in greenhouse
Representatives from the port reported that the shore power system is the single largest emissions
reduction project in Ventura County history. In addition to helping reduce emissions while cargo
throughput has increased, the shore power system has delivered emissions reductions of diesel
particulate matter which is of greatest concern to the local community. Port representatives
report that neighbors notice when the shore power system is non-operational and vessels are
emitting at-berth, compared to times when vessels are plugged in with no emissions coming from
the vessel stacks and engine noise is reduced. The community is strongly in support of the shore
power system at the port.
4.2.2 Planning
The Port of Hueneme is in the process of preparing for the newest version of CARB's At-Berth
Regulation Port representatives stressed the importance of communication between the port and
rulemaking and enforcement groups at regulatory agencies. Alignment between practitioners and
rule-makers helps to ensure that regulations consider the nuances and complexities of the
commercial maritime environment and system operations, as details of terminal operations vary
port by port, berth by berth. Port representatives also stressed the importance of integrating
flexibility in the promulgated rules, while providing clarity and reducing compliance reporting
and enforcement burdens that are poorly suited to on-dock realities such as time requirements
which could jeopardize safety.
The port is currently engineering a new shore power system for their north terminal which is
dominated by vehicle carrier/RORO vessel calls. The port has encountered significant challenges
associated with this project during their planning for the At-Berth Regulation.
First, when initiating discussions with the local utility (Southern California Edison), it appeared
that the utility was not prepared for the increased power demand needed to comply with CARB's
At-Berth Regulation. The utility indicated that while they may be able to accommodate the
increased demands of the north terminal within the current system, during periods of high
demand there may be brownouts for the community. The potential for adverse effects on the
local community could negatively impact how the port is perceived and highlighted the
importance of early, frequent, and open communication between the port and the utility
regarding the shore power system. In this case, it was recommended that during the rulemaking
30
-------
process discussions between regulators and the local power suppliers should be included to
develop the rule, so everyone is aware of the required infrastructure and the timing, load scale
and frequency of power demand to meet shore power system needs.
Second, funding for the additional shore power infrastructure, and the necessary feasibility
studies, remains a significant need for the port. At the south terminal, the port had approximately
$4 million dollars available in their budget, but the total cost of the project was $15 million,
leaving the port to find alternative funding sources to make up the difference. Funding for the
shore power system at the south terminal was ultimately funded through four sources: South
Coast Air Quality Management District, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, EPA's
Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) funding, and federal Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement funding. However, the north terminal serves RORO vessels, for which
shore power is a largely unproven technology, making it a challenge for the port to successfully
apply for grants. In addition to infrastructure funding, the port sees significant funding needs for
engineering, assessment, and planning studies to determine the feasibility and electrical demand
of the new and upgraded system. Port representatives also cited challenges in meeting tight
deadlines to submit their plans to regulatory authorities.
Third, port representatives cited uncertainty on the vessel side as a complicating factor for
developing their shore power systems, specifically regarding the need for alternative compliance
pathways for RORO vessels, such as bonnets and other CARB Approved Emissions Control
Systems (CAECSs). Furthermore, for those vehicle carrier/RORO vessels installing shore power
systems, the international plug standard has not yet been established. It is unclear whether the
standard will adopt the 6.6 kV systems, which are more common in the United States, or 11 kV
systems, which are more common in Europe. The international standard for HVSC installations
(IEC/ISO/IEEE 80005-l:2019/AMD 1:2022) covers both 6.6 kV and 11 kV systems.
The three factors cited above—uncertainty regarding availability of the service from the utility,
significant need for infrastructure and scoping study funding, and uncertainty around vessel-side
demand—has created concerns over the increasing cost of adopting and integrating shore power
systems and corresponding concerns regarding port competitiveness, both regionally and
nationally.
4.2.3 Infrastructure and Utility
The Port of Hueneme installed six shore power outlets in 2014 at three berths at a cost of $14
million to serve vessels regulated under the CARB At-Berth Regulations. The configuration
allowed the port to concurrently plug in two vessels at any two of the three electrified berths.126
Upgrades to the electrical infrastructure included new 16.9 kV service switchgear, 2,000 feet of
duct banks, two shore power substations, and six shore power outlet boxes each providing 3
MVA, 6.6 kV connection points.
126VSTAR, Port of Hueneme Flips Switch on Shore Power, https://archive.vcstar.com/business/port-of-hueneme-flips-switch-on-
shore-power-system-for-ships-ep-458928732-351411851 .html/
31
-------
The port, in partnership with Tesla, has also installed five battery packs to purchase and store
lower-cost, off-peak electricity for daytime use by vessels connected to shore power.127
Statements from the CEO of the Port of Hueneme128 reveal that infrastructure upgrades will be
required to support port electrification, including the shore power system, and upgrade the
substations from 16.9 to 66 kV systems, as the existing system is nearing capacity.
The port reports average shore power electricity costs around $0.20/kWh, with rates set by
Southern California Edison for large businesses.129 Hourly charges are variable based on time of
day and ambient temperatures, and demand charges are on the order of $14.67/kW of maximum
monthly demand. Port representatives reported that vessel operators are not seeing a cost savings
using shore power.
4.2.4 Commissioning and Labor
Vessels that call at the Port of Hueneme and request shore power for the first time undergo a
commissioning process with the port. This process involves a detailed review of the vessel shore
power system specifications and compatibility, and safety checks. If vessels have not plugged in
at Port of Hueneme, but have plugged in elsewhere in California, then the port considers them to
be commissioned and allows them to connect after a review of the vessel shore power system
specifications.
Port representatives identified specialized training as key for the proper functioning of the shore
power system. The port does not have dedicated high voltage electrical engineers for the shore
power system due to staffing constraints, and responsibility for connection falls to the terminal
operators and longshoremen. As such, the port cannot guarantee which labor will be provided for
connections. If the operators are not well trained and experienced operating the shore power
equipment, then specialized technical assistance is required. Shoreside operators rely on
equipment manufacturer technicians to train the shoreside technicians, and when complex
challenges are encountered related to the infrastructure of the supporting substation equipment
operators will often request help from port technical staff.
4.3 Port of New York & New Jersey
The Port of Brooklyn cruise terminal opened in 2006 and is located in the Red Hook area on the
Buttermilk Channel between the borough of Brooklyn and Governs Island. In 2018 it had
approximately 28 ship calls handling 143,000 passengers. The New York City Economic
Development Corporation (NYCEDC) announced the opening of the shore power system at the
Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in November of 2016. Ports America has been operating the terminal
since 2017.130
127 Port of Hueneme Kristin Decas Testimony April 15, 2021.
https://transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Decas%20Testimonv.pdf
128 Port of Hueneme. Puts Final Touches on Shore Power Project: https://www.portofhueneme.org/port-puts-final-touches-on-
shore-power-proiect/. May 2016.
129 Special tariff schedules for the Port of Hueneme are not available. See for example: https://librarv.sce.com/content/dam/sce-
doclib/public/regulatorv/tariff/electric/schedules/general-service-&-industrial-rates/ELECTRIC SCHEDULES T0U-8-
RTP.pdf
130 Information in this section is derived in part from communications with representatives from NYCEDC and Ports America.
We thank them for their input.
32
-------
Port of New York & New Jersey Lessons Learned
• The shore power design should provide sufficient flexibility in the location of the
shore power connection cables to ensure that all vessels can connect.
• Shore power has helped the port deliver emissions reductions for the local community,
and local residents notice when the system is not working.
• Engaging in early, often, and open dialogue with the utility is critical to ensure the
needs of the shore power system are met without impact to the local power needs.
• Tidal and wind/weather events can affect the ability of the ship to safely connect to
shore power.
• Adhering to on-time cruise vessel schedules are a critical factor in determining
whether a vessel will plug in. If the vessel is behind schedule, then it generally doesn't
connect to shore power.
4.3.1 Challenges and Opportunities
The shore power system at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal was installed per Watts Marine's
(formerly Cochran Marine) design and completed in 2015. The cable positioning device (CPD)
has an extendable boom and can be remotely monitored. The shore power system at Brooklyn
was designed to accommodate the Queen Mary 2, operated by Cunard, which is part of the
Carnival Corporation. In addition to the Queen Mary 2, Princess Cruises, which is also part of
the Carnival Corporation, now calls at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal as well. The system is fixed
in place on the apron. The terminal apron at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal is 25 feet wide, and
initial thoughts were that the apron was too narrow for a mobile system, however, the port now
believes that future systems may be flexible enough to fit on the apron and accommodate other
vessels with shore power connection points in different locations. Additionally, there were safety
concerns regarding loading and unloading operations on the small apron in close proximity to the
shore power cables.
The system has been adapted to service more than one cruise ship since Princess Cruises started
calling at the terminal, though vessels still only connect approximately 50% of the time.
Connection issues arise due to a range of factors, including tidal-related challenges that make
aligning shore and vessel systems difficult, delays due to late vessel arrivals and short connection
times, and connectivity to the local grid. If the local grid is stressed, such as during high
electrical demand, then the shore power system is typically unavailable. These issues—including
local grid reliability, vessel arrival times and schedules, tidal and wind conditions, and vessel-
side operations—has led to concerns from ship captains regarding the reliability of the shore
power system and potential disruptions to vessel operations while at berth. On-time vessel
arrivals were cited as the most important factor ensuring successful use of the shore power
system.
The connection time at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal is around 90 minutes, while disconnecting
takes approximately an hour. A typical call at the terminal lasts around eight to nine hours.
The connecting and disconnecting process is performed by trained technicians from Watts
Marine. Representatives from NYCEDC and Ports America noted that if the vessel arrives late,
33
-------
then the shore power system is typically not connected due to time constraints and the need to
follow proper procedures for connecting and disconnecting, which cannot be rushed in order to
accommodate shorter turnaround times needed to ensure the vessel departs on time.
4.3.2 Planning
In addition to the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, NYCEDC manages operations at the Manhattan
Cruise Terminal, located on the Hudson River on Manhattan's West Side. NYCEDC is planning
upgrades to terminal and dock facilities at the Manhattan Cruise Terminal, with no confirmed
plans to add shore power at that facility.
Per communications with representatives from NYCEDC and Ports America, the electrical grid
on Manhattan's West Side is complex and challenging for utility planners. The planned
Manhattan Terminal will have three berths. Given the complexities of the local grid, the project
costs to provide shore power to are estimated to be very high. The terminal footprints and the
working area at the Manhattan Terminal are also more constrained than at the Brooklyn
Terminal, further complicating shore power installation. Additionally, when developing the
shore power system at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, the port worked closely with the Carnival
Corporation, which owns Cunard and Princess Cruises, providing confidence in the number of
calls by vessels equipped to connect to shore power. Analysis of vessels calling at the Manhattan
Cruise Terminal by NYCEDC and port staff shows high variability in the frequency of calls by
shore power capable vessels.
At the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, around 43% of calls (9 calls) connected to the shore power
system in 2018. In 2022, there are 31 scheduled calls at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal.131 The
Queen Mary 2, which is shore power capable, is scheduled to call 16 times, and the Enchanted
Princess, which is also shore power capable is scheduled to call eight times. The Caribbean
Princess is scheduled to call six times and the Sky Princess once in 2022.
The Brooklyn Cruise Terminal is working with Watts Marine to expand the range of connection
points on the pier to provide greater flexibility for vessel connections. Representatives from the
terminal have also discussed moving from a fixed connection system to a movable system,
providing greater flexibility for connection. The cost of a movable system reportedly would be
about one million dollars.
4.3.3 Infrastructure and Utility
When the shore power system at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal was planned, the landside
infrastructure also needed to be upgraded in advance to accommodate the additional electrical
load from the system.
The shore power system at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal is tied into the local grid operated by
Consolidated Edison. Three feeder lines serve the local grid from Consolidated Edison
generation facilities. Port representatives noted that due to the demands of the shore power
system, if one or more of the feeder lines go down, or other electrical issues arise on the local
131 NY Cruise Schedule: https://www.nvcruise.com/schedule/. Accessed April 11, 2022.
34
-------
grid, then the shore power system is typically the first to be taken offline. The port also noted
that in some cases, they do not find out until the day of vessel arrival that the shore power system
is unavailable. Power availability from the grid was seen as one of the most significant factors in
fully utilizing the cruise terminal's shore power system.
Vessels calling at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal pay a fixed rate of 12.5 cents/kWh for electricity
while at-berth. This rate is jointly subsidized by the City and State of New York, which covers
the balance of the full applicable tariff rate from the New York Power Authority. This rate does
not include demand charges, which are also covered by the City.
4.3.4 Commissioning and Labor
The shore power system at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal is commissioned at the start of each
cruise season and decommissioned at the end of the season, in addition to regular planned and
unscheduled maintenance of the equipment. Commissioning and decommissioning are
performed by trained technicians from Watts Marine, who also facilitate the regular shore power
connections at the terminal. The commissioning and decommissioning processes are described
by the port as routine operations to test the systems to ensure proper working order, with the
exercises taking approximately two days each.
4.4 Port of Seattle
Shore power has been in use for cruise vessels at the Port of Seattle since 2004, when it was first
installed for Holland America at Terminal 30.132 When cruise operations moved to the two-berth
Smith Cove Cruise Terminal at Terminal 91 in 2009, shore power was installed at both berths.
With this installation, Port of Seattle became the first cruise port in the world with two shore
power berths. In 2019, 85 of 95 shore power-equipped vessel calls connected to shore power at
Terminal 91, providing a connection rate of 89%. Shore power use in 2019 reduced an estimated
3,000 tonnes of CChe. While COVID-19 led to the cancellation of the 2020 cruise season, cruise
ships returned to Seattle for a partial cruise season in 2021 with 82 total cruise calls. 30 of 31
(97%) shore power-equipped vessel calls connected at Terminal 91 in 2021, reducing an
estimated 1,800 tonnes of CChe.133
Marine cargo ship calls at regional terminals are managed by the Northwest Seaport Alliance
(NWSA). The NWSA is installing shore power at two berths as part of a project to modernize
Terminal 5 in Seattle. The shore power system at Terminal 5 is being partially funded by a
special appropriation from the State of Washington.134
132 This section is based on literature review and conversations with representatives from the Port of Seattle and Watts Marine.
We thank them for their input.
133 Puget Sound Maritime Air Emissions Inventory - Deep Dive: Cruise Shore Power
https://www.portseattle.org/programs/puget-sound-maritime-air-emissions-inventorv. Accessed August 15, 2022.
134 The Northwest Seaport Alliance. Investing in Cleaner Air. https://www.nwseaportalliance.com/environment/clean-
air/investing-cleaner-air. Accessed August 15, 2022.
35
-------
Port of Seattle Lessons Learned
• Shore power infrastructure costs are high and public funding is critical in helping the
port implement shore power.
• Connections with the utility are complex, and utility-imposed demand charges
significantly increase the cost to vessels to operate using shore power at dock.
• Conversations with vessel operators indicate that they are not yet seeing cost savings
when using shore power.
• Public funding sources are critical for shore power infrastructure development.
• The shore power system design should provide flexibility in the location of the shore
power connection cables to allow all vessels that are shore power ready to connect
• The shore power system design should also account for future demands that include
other appropriate terminals and decarbonization initiatives.
4.4.1 Challenges and Opportunities
The biggest challenge identified by representatives from the Port of Seattle is the limited
availability of shore power connections on vessels calling at the port. At present, just over 50%
of cruise vessels calling at the port are equipped with a connection. Under the Northwest Ports
Clean Air Strategy135, the port has a goal of installing shore power at 100% of major cruise and
container berths, with 100% of cruise ships equipped with and able to connect to shore power by
2030.
Representatives from the Port also identified challenges implementing shore power for vessel
types other than cruise ships. While the port is seeing increasing numbers of shore power-
equipped vessels in the cargo sector, implementing shore power for the bulk sector—particularly
grain ships—remains challenging. The port sees relatively few calls from grain ships, and though
they may berth for extended periods, many of these vessels are not recurring visitors, so the
economic investment associated with shore power may not exist from the vessel owner's
perspective if shore power is not available at other ports along its route.
The Port of Seattle also identified the high cost of shore power infrastructure as a barrier to
adoption. Shore power projects are typically very expensive, on the order of tens of millions of
dollars. Representatives from the port identified available grant funding as essential to meet the
Northwest Ports Clean Air Strategy goals. Furthermore, the large electrical loads required for
shore power present a significant challenge to the local utility, which has to design and upgrade
systems for maximum loads, and often faces feeder capacity and load balancing issues. Utility
infrastructure upgrades add considerable costs and complexity to shore power projects.
Additionally, the demand charges associated with shore power systems can change the financial
case for vessels, particularly cruise ships, such that shore power is not necessarily a lower-cost
option compared to running auxiliary engines on bunker fuels.
135 2020 Northwest Ports Clean Air Strategy: https://www.nwseaportalliance.com/environment/clean-air/northwest-ports-clean-
ail-strategy
36
-------
Coordinated planning on shore power projects is also critical, especially as Port of Seattle and
other users of the waterfront plan for electrification and decarbonization of the maritime sector.
As Port of Seattle is in the process of adding shore power to a third cruise berth at Pier 66 along
the downtown Seattle waterfront, Washington State Ferries (WSF), which operates the largest
ferry system in the United States, is also undertaking an effort to electrify their fleet with plug-in
hybrid-electric vessels and corresponding terminal enhancements.136 By design, these vessels
will not utilize standard diesel auxiliary engines but instead rely on landside electrical power
while at-berth to provide electricity while docked and charge the batteries used for propulsion.
WSF plans to replace 16 aging vessels with new vessels, and to retrofit 6 existing vessels.
According to WSF, "shore charging" will require electrical charging infrastructure at the
terminals to support the new plug-in vessels. The shore charging power supply will involve a
rapid charging system connecting the ferry terminal wingwall with the vessel's onboard battery
system. Development of the rapid charging system is challenging due to the time constraints
involved with ferry operations, which make frequent terminal calls but have very short
turnaround times and may require shoreside energy storage systems to alleviate strain on the
local grid when vessels plug in, as well as provide rapid direct current charging.
The WSF ferry terminal is located adjacent to Pier 66. The Port, WSF, and the local utility is
coordinating with all stakeholders to ensure there is sufficient electric capacity for multiple high
demand uses from maritime electrification. The Port expects challenges to arise in other
locations around the Port and waterfront as electric technologies become increasingly available
in maritime applications. To help alleviate these challenges, the Port initiated a holistic
waterfront planning effort in collaboration with the local utility, Seattle City Light, to jointly plan
for future loads that are aligned with the Port's decarbonization goals.
4.4.2 Planning
The Port of Seattle has faced similar planning challenges to other ports regarding the flexibility
of fixed shore power CPDs. Fixed gangways and CPDs do not allow for flexibility to
accommodate the full variety of vessels that could connect to the shore power systems. Watts
Marine has outfitted a manlift that can be moved along the pier to facilitate shore power
connections. One of the challenges of this solution, however, is the cable required for shore
power is heavy and bulky making it a challenge to manage.
The Port of Seattle plans to expand its waterfront electrification program by adding shore power
at the Pier 66 Bell Street Cruise Terminal, which serves Norwegian Cruise Line and Oceania
Cruises' service to Alaska. Project cost estimates total approximately $30 million.137 The Pier 66
project is funded in part by grant funding from EPA's DERA program, the state of Washington
Department of Ecology, the TransAlta Centralia Coal Transition Board, cost sharing from the
port, and additional leveraged funds. The addition of shore power will require onsite and offsite
work to add a dual voltage (6.6 kV and 11 kV) 20 MW system for the single berth at Pier 66 and
other cruise and container ship facilities. Offsite work will include upgrading the connections to
136 Washington State Ferries System Electrification Plan. December 2020. https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-ll/WSF-
SvstemElectrificationPlan-December2020.pdf
137 Port of Seattle, Waterfront Electrification- Shore Power Pier 66 https://www.portseattle.org/sites/default/files/2018-
12/waterfront-electrification-P66.pdf https://www.portseattle.org/proiects/pier-66bell-street-pier-shore-power
37
-------
the utility for 20 MW supply and lay new conduit and cabling to feed the shore power system.
The port is in the permitting process to lay a submarine cable from Pier 46 to Pier 66. Delivering
power via a submarine cable avoids construction from trenching city streets along Seattle's
central waterfront, which would substantially delay implementation and increase costs. Onsite
work will include new conduits, cables, and transformers and switchgears that feed into the CPD
at the bull rail. Cruise ships such as those expected to call at Pier 66 tend to have large power
requirements, up to 14 MW. Furthermore, the port is in discussion with Washington State
Ferries, which would require an estimated 10 MW of power, to co-develop electrification at Pier
66 to serve both cruise ships and ferries.
4.4.3 Infrastructure and Utility
The primary switchgear at Terminal 91 which includes metering equipment and relay protection
devices, is fed by Seattle City Light at 27.5 kV. The primary switchgear then feeds into a
transformer and a secondary switchgear that delivers either 6.6 kV or 11 kV depending on the
vessel needs.
Electricity is provided by Seattle City Light and metered as High Demand General Service
(10,000+ kW maximum monthly demand). Rates provided by Seattle City Light include peak
and off-peak service and demand charges,138 as shown in Table 7. The grid mix supplying
Seattle City Light is 93% renewable, including hydroelectricity, wind power, and biogas.
Table 7: High Demand (10,000 kW+) electric service rates for the city of Seattle from Seattle City Light.
Measurement
Rate Category
High Demand Rate
Service Charge
(Per kWh)
Peak
$0.0867
Off-Peak
$0.0572
Demand Charge
(Per kW)
Peak
$3.85
Off-Peak
$0.27
Minimum bill per meter day
$93.33
In addition to shore power for cruise, low-voltage shore power connections are common for
fishing vessels and tugs around the Port of Seattle. All fishing vessels can connect to low-voltage
systems, and port representatives report that if fishing vessels are at-berth for four or more days,
then they almost always connect. At Terminal 91, standard power pits carry 480 V, 400 A
service, with two 480 V, 800 A services also available. Vessel operators of newer and larger
fishing vessels have identified the need for a higher amperage connection of 600A. The port
works closely with the vessel operators to supply low-voltage shore power, with vessel operators
informing the port of their power needs and the port electricians adapting the available service to
those needs.
138 Seattle Government. Seattle City Light. Business Rates, https://www.seattle.gov/citv-light/business-solutions/business-
billing-and-account-information/business-rates#seattlebusinesses. Accessed April 11. 2022.
38
-------
In October 2020, the Port of Seattle Commissioners authorized funding for low-voltage shore
power improvements for Dock-E at Harbor Island Marina.139 The existing infrastructure no
longer meets the power requirements of the tug and marine construction/salvage companies that
are currently tenants, and the existing transformer presents a safety issue. The total estimated
project cost for the improvements is $450,000 to upgrade the existing 200 A and 30 A service at
Dock-E to three-phase 480 V service. The upgrades completed in 2021. The project removed the
existing transformer from the dock and relocated new electrical equipment landside. The upgrade
also included a new transformer providing 600 A, three-phase 480 V power to serve six shore
power pedestals with combination three-phase 480 V and single-phase 120 V power.
4.4.4 Commissioning and Labor
Vessels connecting to shore power at the Port of Seattle are typically "home port" cruise vessels
with established berthing schedules. Shore power-capable, home port vessels are then
commissioned by the port to ensure safety, security, and compatibility between the vessel and the
landside shore power system. Once the vessel is commissioned it is given an agreement to
connect to the shore power system.
Once shore power equipment has been commissioned at the port, electricians from Watts Marine
provide operations and maintenance support. Watts electricians work with the ships' crews to
support the connection to shoreside infrastructure and are responsible for commissioning and
decommissioning the system at the beginning and end of the cruise season.
The Watts Marine system at the port is semi-automated and remotely monitored. While the
connection process itself is not automated, once it is connected, remote operators are able to
monitor the system and gather information regarding connection and disconnection times, kWh
consumed, and associated emissions reductions.
Watts contracts with union electricians that have experience with medium and high-voltage
systems. Watts requires additional in-house training and certification of electricians before they
can operate the system. Most of the cable management and system operation is done from a
human-machine interface that mitigates risk to operators.
4.5 Decarbonization of the Grid
Shore power use can have a net positive impact on air quality if the landside emissions from the
electric generating units (EGUs) providing power to the shore power system are lower than the
associated auxiliary engine emissions occurring at berth. Generally, the coastal electric grid is
cleaner due to increased use of renewables (Table 8). except for certain areas such as Alaska.
Hawaii. Michigan, and the Mississippi Valley, where emissions for specific pollutants are higher.
139 Additional details may be found in Attachments 6f for the October 13, 2020, Commission Meeting at:
https://meetings.portseattle.org
39
-------
Table 8: Comparison of regional eGRID emission factors.
eGRID Subregion Name140
Regional Emission Factors g/kWh)
NOx
S02
CCheq
PM2.5
ASCC Alaska Grid
2.48
0.50
474.00
0.093
ASCC Miscellaneous
3.50
0.31
239.03
0.355
WECC California
0.21
0.02
226.20
0.014
ERCT All
0.25
0.38
424.60
0.021
FRCC All
0.16
0.13
424.63
0.029
HICC Miscellaneous
3.46
1.80
507.60
0.420
HICC Oahu
1.59
3.63
763.21
0.262
NPCC New England
0.18
0.06
239.30
0.021
WECC Northwest
0.26
0.17
291.82
0.017
NPCC Upstate NY
0.06
0.04
115.16
0.008
RFC East
0.15
0.22
326.58
0.022
RFC Michigan
0.36
0.59
599.28
0.029
RFC West
0.37
0.42
0.44
532.53
0.048
SERC Mississippi Valley
0.28
389.35
0.020
SERC South
0.22
0.13
468.77
0.016
SERC Virginia/Carolina
0.20
0.12
339.07
0.023
Marine Engine Emission Factors
Higher than NOx Tier III
2
Higher than MGO (0.10%S)
7.7
0.424
705
0.174
Higher than MDO (0.50%S)
7.7
2.121
705
0.299
Table 8 compares the EGU emission factors by region with those for auxiliary engines, on a
kWh basis.
Comparing eGRID Regional Emission Factors to Marine Engine Emission Factors, in most cases
the grid emission factors are significantly lower except in a few instances highlighted in table
above. Aggregated emissions per kWh for landside power generation are generally declining
over time due to more use of natural gas, expansion of wind, solar, hydroelectric power, and use
of biofuels. The expansion of renewable power is occurring while combustion of fossil fuels
such as coal represent a smaller fraction of the total U.S. electricity generation mix (Figure 7).141
140 See Figure 5 for Subregion locations.
141 EIA Projects Renewables Share of U.S. Electricity Generation Mix Will Double by 2050 (2021).
https://www.eia.gov/todavinenergy/detail.php?id=46676
40
-------
6
2020
history projection
2
5
0
4
3
1
renewables
42%
in 2050
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
Figure 7: Historical and projected U.S. electricity generation.
Renewables account for 79.3% of U.S. electricity generating capacity that came online in 2022
(including planned capacity) (see Figure 8).142 Of the anticipated 44.4 gigawatts (GW) of new
electrical capacity, solar accounts for 17.8 GW, mostly in Texas, California, and North Carolina.
Wind power accounts for 11.2 GW, which is planned for Texas and offshore of Virginia. To
address the issue of intermittent power generation intrinsic to solar and wind power, investments
in battery storage continue to increase (6.2 GW). Increasing battery storage allows for energy to
be saved during daylight hours or when wind is generating power. This energy can then be
available during evening hours or when winds are light or too fast to safely generate power. One
of the largest solar batteiy storage units was developed at Manatee Energy Storage Center in
Florida with 409 MW of capacity completed in 2021.143
As long as emissions from the energy source used to support shore power is cleaner than
emissions from the diesel auxiliary engines used by marine vessels while dockside, then shore
power will provide a positive air quality impact. The expansion of renewables helps ensure shore
power will continue to provide a cleaner option.
142 U.S. Energy Information Administration. August 3. 2022. The U.S. power grid added 15 GW of generating capacity in the
first half of 2022. https://www.eia.gov/todavineneTgv/detail.php?id=53299
143 U.S. Energy Information Administration. January 11.2021, Renewables account for most new U.S. electricity generating
capacity in 2021. https://www.eia.gov/todavinenergv/detail.php?id=46416
41
-------
Cumulative utility-scale electric generating capacity additions (2022)
gigawatts
added to date in 2022 planned additions
4f1 W battery storage
Data source: U.S. Energy Infot islralion, Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory
Figure 8: Planned additional utility-scale electricity generating capacity in 2022 (GW).
4.6 Future Shore Power Technologies and Projects
Recent advances in shore power utilize alternative fuels and technologies, resulting in low- or
zero-emission systems. For instance, Sandia National Laboratories has been working with Young
Brothers' Shipping at the Port of Honolulu, Hawaii, to develop a hydrogen fuel cell-based shore
power system. The prototype 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, able to operate independent of
the grid.
Crowley Maritime144 has designed an 82-foot, all-electric powered harbor tugboat the "eWolf"
which will use shore power at its berth at the Port of San Diego starting in 2023. The unique
power-charging station can leverage different alternative, cleaner sources of energy as available
and feasible while providing enough energy capability to support the harbor vessel's full daily
operations. Crowley is working with SDG&E and the Port to create the necessary infrastructure
required. The charging system is designed to ensure optimal efficiency while leveraging 3 MWh
of energy storage for quick charging, avoiding peak demand times and electrical loads that will
allow users to use the most efficient and sustainable energy available. Shoreside connection to
the shipboard electrical system can be done with a semiautomated davit system to further support
safety of the crew while adjusting for changing tides and weather conditions. Crowley's goal is
to a create a repeatable and scalable charging systems for installation in other Ports to support all
future harbor craft.
Foss Maritime has been operating two hybrid tug vessels, the Carolyn Dorothy and the Campbell
Foss at the Port of Long Beach. 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. This hybrid system is an EPA verified system which reduces PM emissions 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. At berth loads for
the Campbell Foss are about 50 kW (Foss, 2011).
4 Information acquired from Greg Glover of Crowley Maritime.
42
-------
LNG is also being considered as a fuel source for shore power. 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.
European ferries are often larger and operated on longer routes than their U.S. 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—two RORO and two ROPAX—to operate on shore
power in 2012.145 Stena Line's vessels that are plugging into shore power at Hoek van Holland
have electrical systems that operate at 60 Hz. In order to connect to the local grid, which operates
at 50 Hz, Stena Line employed an 11 kV static frequency conversion shore power system from
ABB Ltd. 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 ferry berths in western Norway.146 The automated mooring and shore power
system will serve two battery-powered ferries operated by Norled between the two terminals,
which each make around eight 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 toward total project costs of $179,300. The shore power
system is anticipated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 120 tons annually at the terminal.147
China's Ministry of Transport had announced in 2016, that seven terminals will begin trial
implementations of shore power, including cruise, bulk, and container terminals.148 Three vessels
were used to test the emissions reductions and operational challenges of shore power, including a
10,000 TEU COSCO Shipping container vessel. Chinese authorities anticipated 99% reductions
in NOx emissions, and 3-17% reductions in PM compared to vessels burning conventional heavy
fuel oil (HFO). In 2018, the China Ministry of Transport released an action plan for establishing
a national domestic emission control area (DECA) that mandated certain ships use shore power
while at berth starting in 2021. In addition to the DECA, China has voluntarily encouraged its
ports to use shore power by providing governmental funding to subsidize shore power
infrastructure.149
145 ABB, Success Story, Turnkey Shore-to-Ship Power Connection at Stena Line B.V. Ferry Terminal in Hoek van Holland, the
Netherlands, https://librarv.e.abb.com/public/69e4dc9bd3afc54acl257a2900310ac0/Case%20studv%20ferries%20-
%2 0Stena%2 0Hoek%2 0van%2 0Holland%20NL.pdf
146 Cavotec, Cavotec Moormaster/Automatic Plug-in System, Sept 21, 2016.https ://press .cavotec .com/videos/cavotec-
moormaster-slash-automatic-plug-in-svstem-25224
147 Ship and Bunker, Canadian Ferry Terminal to Get Shore Power. March 7, 2013. http://shipandbunker.com/news/am/341961-
canadian-ferrv-terminal-to-get-shore-power
148 Ship and Bunker, China Announces Seven Terminals to Trial Shore Power, July 13, 2016.
https://shipandbunker.com/news/apac/613843-china-announces-seven-terminals-to-trial-shore-power
149 NRDC China Taking Further Steps to Clean Up Shipping Pollution, January 10, 2019, https://www.nrdc.org/experts/barbara-
finamore/china-taking-further-steps-clean-shipping-pollution
43
-------
In California, CARB's At-Berth Regulations will require the expansion of shore power as an
option at its existing terminals, to include vessel types not covered under the existing rule. The
regulation will also expand to tanker terminals in Northern California at the ports of Carquinez,
Richmond, Rodeo, and Stockton with shore power being explored at certain terminals.
Analysis by CARB staff150 indicates that significant infrastructure upgrades are necessary for
tankers calling at California ports, including development of both land-based and barge-based
capture and control systems. CARB analysis indicates that the primary compliance pathway with
the At-Berth Regulation for tankers will be to use capture and control technologies, with shore
power as an option, when feasible. Compliance pathways for tanker terminals are still being
evaluated, with updated plans to be submitted in 2024. CARB has published each port and
terminal plan on their website.151
CARB analysis of the additional needs under the At-Berth Regulation for container and reefer
vessels shows that five new shore power vaults plus one additional capture and control system
will be necessary to meet increased demand. Two additional vaults are estimated to be required
at container terminals at the Port of Los Angeles, along with one additional capture and control
system shared with the Port of Long Beach. Three additional vaults will be required at container
and reefer berths at the Port of Oakland to meet projected needs under the At-Berth Regulation.
For cruise vessels, additional demand for shore power due to the At-berth Regulation may
potentially lead to one additional shore power berth in San Francisco, with all other ports
projected to be able to meet demand. The Port of San Diego previously announced plans to
double the shore power capacity at its B Street and Broadway Pier cruise terminals,152 at a cost
of $4.6 million, to allow two cruise vessels to connect to shore power outlets concurrently.
Vehicle carriers/RORO vessels are also included in the At-Berth Regulation. Per CARB's
analysis, the needs of vehicle carrier/RORO vessels under the Regulation can be met using the
existing infrastructure or using barge- or land-based capture and control systems.
In Florida, Port Miami has announced plans for shore power,153 which would be the second high-
voltage system on the U.S. East Coast and the first in the Southeast. The mayor of Miami
announced that Carnival Cruise Line and Miami-Dade County have agreed to a shore power pilot
program at Port Miami. The agreement includes a commitment by Carnival to use shore power
for up to four vessels calling at the port's new cruise terminal starting Fall 2023. Additionally,
Miami-Dade County signed a joint statement with six cruise companies and Florida Power and
Light to bring shore power to the port. EPA's DERA program partially funded the first phase of
the project with a $2 million grant.
150 Berth analyses by CARB staff are available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/new-berth-regulation-development
151 CARB Terminal and Port Plan Submissions, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/terminal-and-port-plan-submissions
152 Port of San Diego Environment, Port of San Diego to Double Shore Power at Cruise Terminals, April 26, 2021
http://www.latecruisenews.com/2021/04/26/port-of-san-diego-to-double-shore-power-at-cruise-terminals/
153 Miami-Dade County, Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniella Levine Cava Announces Commitment with Carnival Cruise Line
for Shore Power Pilot at Port Miami, March 19, 2021. https://www.miamidade.gov/releases/2021-03-19-portmiami-shore-
power.asp
44
-------
In July 2021 the Port of Galveston, Texas, announced that it is partnering with Royal Caribbean
International cruises to determine the feasibility of providing shore power to Oasis-class vessels
at the new cruise terminal being built at Pier 10, set to open in 2023.154
In March 2022 Port Everglades has entered into an agreement with Florida Power & Light (FPL)
to explore shore power at all its eight cruise ship berths. The agreement gives FPL to begin the
design services required to construct a new electrical sub-station and power distribution facilities
at the Port. 155
154 Port of Galveston, Port Reports Progress on Green Marine Programs, April 6, 2022.
https://www.portofgalveston.com/CivicAlerts.aspx? AID=211
155 Port Everglades, Port Everglades explores Shore Power, March 15, 2022. https://green-marine.org/stavinformed/news/port-
everglades-explores-shore-power/
45
-------
5 Recommended Approach for Comparing Shore Power and Vessel Emissions
The Shore Power Emissions Calculator (SPEC) developed for this study accounts for vessel
characteristics, marine fuel characteristics, shipside and shoreside emissions control
technologies, and shoreside electricity generation fuel mix, among others. While many of the
calculator's input assumptions will be relatively certain (e.g., the number of port calls expected
over a given timeframe, the average at berth time), others may be less certain. In these instances,
the SPEC provides estimates for certain parameters (e.g., auxiliary engine power and load,
shoreside electric power emissions).
EPA's updated May 2022 Shore Power Emissions Calculator is located on EPA's website:
https://www.epa.gov/ports-initiative/shore-power-technology-assessment-us-ports
This section describes the inputs, data and assumptions, equations, and outputs that are used by
the Calculator to estimate emissions reductions resulting from shore power system use.
5.1 Inputs
The approach for calculating emissions reductions from shore power compared to operating
auxiliary engines includes the following inputs:
• Vessel inputs:
o Auxiliary engine at-berth load (kW), or:
o Installed main engine power (kW) and auxiliary engine fraction of installed main
engine power (%).
o Auxiliary engine load factor at-berth (%).
o Auxiliary engine emission factors (g/kWh).
• Activity inputs:
o Vessel port calls per year,
o At-berth hours per port call.
• Shore power inputs:
o Electricity generation by regional fuel mix that is contributing to the shore power
system (MWh).
o Shore power emission factors (i.e., quotient of total emissions and total electricity
generation, for SO2, NOx, PM10, PM2.5, CO, CO2).
5.2 Data and Assumptions
Users of the companion May 2022 Shore Power Emissions Calculator developed for this study
are required to provide values for each of the inputs identified above (User Guide provided in
Appendix B). Some assumptions may need to be made depending on data availability and the
uncertainty associated with different parameters. In some cases, it may be appropriate to use a
range of estimates. Users should keep in mind that the value of each assumption may change
depending on the timeframe being evaluated. If the analysis is retrospective, users can use actual
recorded data for some equation inputs (e.g., vessel calls for a particular year). However, some
inputs (e.g., vessel emission factors) will still need to be estimated. If the analysis is prospective,
users will need to make assumptions for all inputs based on trends in previous data for the study
46
-------
area or from published literature. Calculator users may also specify improvements in vessel
efficiency for Energy Efficient Design Index vessels, such as lower emission factors for
greenhouse gases. This section discusses sources of reliable data and reasonable assumptions for
each calculation input.
5.2.1 Vessel Inputs
When analyzing vessels for potential emissions reductions from shore power, if a user knows the
specific vessels that have called or will call on the port, the user can usually find the vessel's
name and IMO number.156 The vessel name can also be used to look up the vessel's installed
main engine power online. Many companies list vessel specifications, 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 (subscription-based) vessel
registry databases. Additionally, there are websites where one can search for vessel
characteristics, such as installed main engine power, by name or IMO number. For example,
ships that operate on the Great Lakes have their installed main engine power available through
Greenwood's Guide to Great Lakes Shipping.157
5.2.1.1 Auxiliary engine hotel load at-berth
Vessels operate their auxiliary engines when at-berth to generate electric power needed to run
ancillary equipment and provide heating, cooling, refrigeration, and more. 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" and, in conjunction with the auxiliary engine size, it can be
used to estimate at-berth engine load in kW. If at-berth load is not known, EPA provides default
ocean-going vessel auxiliary engine operating loads by mode in Appendix E Table E.l of the
2022 Ports Emissions Inventory Guidance, shown in Table 9.
Table 9: Hoteling load by vessel type and size.
Ship Type
Subtype
Hoteling (kW)
Bulk Carrier
Small
280
Bulk Carrier
Handy size
280
Bulk Carrier
Handy max
370
Bulk Carrier
Panamax
600
Bulk Carrier
Capesize
600
Bulk Carrier
Capesize Largest
600
Chemical Tanker
Smallest
160
Chemical Tanker
Small
490
Chemical Tanker
Handy size
490
Chemical Tanker
Handy max
1,170
Container Ship
1,000 TEU
340
Container Ship
2,000 TEU
600
Container Ship
3,000 TEU
700
156 USACE maintains Entrance and Clearance vessel data for most major ports:
https://www.iwr.usace. armv.mil/About/Technical-Centers/WCSC-Waterborne-Commerce-Statistics-Center-2/WCSC-
Foreign-Data/
157 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/
47
-------
Ship Type
Subtype
Hoteling (kW)
Container Ship
5,000 TEU
940
Container Ship
8,000 TEU
970
Container Ship
12,000 TEU
1,000
Container Ship
14,500 TEU
1,200
Container Ship
Largest
1,320
Cruise
2,000 Ton
450
Cruise
10,000 Ton
450
Cruise
60,000 Ton
3,500
Cruise
100,000 Ton
11,480
Cruise
Largest
11,480
Ferry/Passenger (C3)
2,000 Ton
186
Ferry/Passenger (C3)
Largest
524
Ferry/Roll-on/Passenger (C3)
2,000 Ton
105
Ferry/Roll-on/Passenger (C3)
Largest
710
Fishing (C3)
All C3 Fishing
200
General Cargo
5,000 DWT
120
General Cargo
10,000 DWT
330
General Cargo
Largest
970
Liquified Gas Tanker
50,000 DWT
240
Liquified Gas Tanker
100,000 DWT
240
Liquified Gas Tanker
200,000 DWT
1,710
Liquified Gas Tanker
Largest
1,710
Miscellaneous (C3)
All C3 Misc.
190
Offshore Support/Drillship
All Offshore Support/Drillship
320
Oil Tanker
Smallest
250
Oil Tanker
Small
375
Oil Tanker
Handy size
625
Oil Tanker
Handy max
750
Oil Tanker
Panamax
750
Oil Tanker
Aframax
1,000
Oil Tanker
Suezmax
1,250
Oil Tanker
VLCC
1,500
Other Service
All Other Service
220
Other Tanker
All Other Tanker
500
Reefer
All Reefer
1,080
RORO
5,000 Ton
800
RORO
Largest
1,200
Vehicle Carrier
4,000 Vehicles
800
Vehicle Carrier
Largest
800
Yacht
C2/C3 Yacht
130
5.2.1.2 Auxiliary engine emission factors
Auxiliary engine emission factors are critically important to estimating the amount of air
emissions from hoteling when ships are operating their onboard auxiliary engines. EPA (2022)158
provides emission factors for auxiliary engines. These emission factors, summarized in
Table 10, vary by fuel type and engine Tier level for a medium speed engine (250-1200
revolutions per minute). For most cases in North America, MDO (0.1% S) should be assumed.
158 EPA (2022) Ports Emissions Inventory Guidance: Methodologies for Estimating Port-Related and Goods Movement Mobile
Source Emissions Report EPA-420-B-22-011. April 2022. (https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/port-
emissions-inventorv-guidance.)
48
-------
Note that auxiliary engine emission factors for LNG vessels are derived from the Fourth IMO
Greenhouse Gas Study (IMO, 2020)159. Tier 0 applies to NOx emissions from vessels built in
1999 or earlier, Tier I applies to vessels built from 2000-2010, and Tier II applies to vessels built
from 2011-2015. Tier III, the most stringent NOx control, applies to vessels built in 2016 or
later.
Table 10: Auxiliary engine emission factors for medium-speed engines (g/kWh), as found in EPA (2022) and
IMO (2020).
Tier
Fuel
NOx
SO2
CO2
CH4
PM2.5
N2O
C02eq
Tier 0
MGO (0.10% S)
13.8
0.424
696
0.01
0.166
0.03
705
Tier I
MGO (0.10% S)
12.2
0.424
696
0.01
0.166
0.03
705
Tier II
MGO (0.10% S)
10.5
0.424
696
0.01
0.166
0.03
705
Tier III
MGO (0.10% S)
2.6
0.424
696
0.01
0.166
0.03
705
Tier 0
MDO (0.50% S)
13.8
2.12
696
0.01
0.294
0.03
705
Tier I
MDO (0.50% S)
12.2
2.12
696
0.01
0.294
0.03
705
Tier II
MDO (0.50% S)
10.5
2.12
696
0.01
0.294
0.03
705
Tier III
MDO (0.50% S)
2.6
2.12
696
0.01
0.294
0.03
705
Tier 0
HFO (3.50% S)
14.7
12.0
707
0.01
1.42
0.03
717
Tier I
HFO (3.50% S)
13.0
12.0
707
0.01
1.42
0.03
717
Tier II
HFO (3.50% S)
11.2
12.0
707
0.01
1.42
0.03
717
Tier III
HFO (3.50% S)
2.8
12.0
707
0.01
1.42
0.03
717
Otto-MS
LNG
1.30
0.00526
457
5.500
0.0300
0.03
603
Vessels operating within the NA ECA were required to operate on fuel with a maximum S
content of 0.1% as of January 1, 2015, per MARPOL Annex VI Regulation 14. Additionally,
under MARPOL Annex VI Regulation 13, Tier II engine 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 January 1, 2011. Moreover, Tier III standards require an 80% reduction
from Tier I NOx standards for vessels built on or after January 1, 2016 and operating within an
ECA. Thus, if the vessels calling on the ports being studied are newer builds, their emission
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)
(Note: This is based on the "keel laid" date. However, there were some Tier II vessels
brought in service after 2016 which were pre-built with a keel laid date of 2015.)
159 LNG emission factors for SO2 and CH4 are from the Fourth IMO Greenhouse Gas Study, retrieved from: https://docs.imo.org
49
-------
5.2.2 Activity Inputs
Activity inputs include the number of vessel port calls per year and the average hoteling hours
per port call.
5.2.2.1 Vessel port calls per year
Historical data on vessel port calls per year can serve as the basis for Emissions Calculator
inputs. Users should obtain, at a minimum, estimated annual port calls by vessel type (e.g.,
container, passenger, reefer). Some larger ports will have these data on hand. Additionally,
USACE maintains a publicly available database of entrances and clearances for foreign vessel
traffic for major U.S. ports.160 However, many domestic port calls, which typically make up only
a small percent of total calls, will be absent from this database. In some cases, researchers may
use Automatic Identification System positional data to identify vessels and port calls. Publicly
available data for the United States are available from the Marine Cadastre.161 The best way to
estimate annual vessel port calls will vary depending on the port being analyzed.
5.2.2.2 Hoteling hours per port call
Average hoteling hours per port call by vessel type are important to estimate power demand for
at-berth vessels. CARB used wharfinger data, based on observed at-berth times, in its analysis to
reduce the uncertainty associated with this input162. Average hoteling hours may also be obtained
from emissions inventories for the port being analyzed or for a similar port. Finally, Automatic
Identification System163 data, available from the Marine Cadastre and private companies, can be
used to track vessel movements estimate hoteling times. For instance, when a vessel arrives at a
port terminal, its speed will reduce to near zero at the berth, and when the vessel leaves the
terminal, its speed will become non-zero. The difference in the two-time stamps for arrival and
departure equals the hoteling time. This approach does not account for the time it takes to
connect the vessel to shore power while it is at-berth. However, users may be able to estimate the
connection time and subtract it from the shore power hoteling time (CARB assumes a
connection/disconnection time of three hours).
5.2.3 Shore Power Inputs
EPA Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID164) is a comprehensive
database detailing the environmental characteristics of electricity generated in the United States.
Characteristics include total annual air emissions, as well as emissions rates, net generation, and
generation type system fuel mix. These data are provided at the generation facility level and are
aggregated up to the state, subregional, regional, and national levels. Table 11 shows how the
160 USACE U.S. Waterway Entrances and Clearances data can be found at https://www.iwr.usace.armv.mil/About/Technical-
Centers/WCSC-Waterborne-Commerce-Statistics-Center-2/WCSC-Foreign-Data/
161 MarineCadastre Vessel Traffic Data. Available at: https://marinecadastre.gov/ais/
162 CARB. (2007). Technical support document: Initial statement 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.
163 U.S. Coast Guard Navigation Center, Automatic Identification System Overview
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=aismain
164 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: https://www.epa.gov/egrid
50
-------
emission rates vary for eGRID subregions shown in Figure 9.
Figure 9: EPA eGRID subregions in 2019. Colors are used to delineate regions.
Figure 9 shows the eGRID 2019 subregions. These subregions are identified and defined by EPA
as a compromise between North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) regions,
which are generally large, and the balancing authorities, which are generally small. EPA defined
the eGRID subregions limit the import and export of electricity, thus establishing an area where
aggregated emissions most closely match the grid generation and emissions from individual
facilities in the subregion. The geographic boundaries shown in Figure 9 are approximate,
derived from electrical grid attributes.
eGRID estimates for carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions (CCkeq) are estimated using global
warming potentials (GWPs) from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Fourth Assessment Report for methane (CHi, GWP = 25) and nitrous oxide (N2O, GWP = 298).
eGRID emission rates are estimated at the point of generation, and do not account for
transmission and distribution losses. Grid gross loss (GGL) is an estimate of the energy lost in
the process of supplying electricity to end users. These losses mainly occur from energy
dissipated in the conductors, transformers, and other equipment used for transmission,
transformation, and distribution of power165. Accounting for GGL is imperative when estimating
landside emissions from shore power, as transmission losses mean that more electricity must be
generated than is ultimately consumed by the vessel connected to the shore power system. The
amount of generation (in kWh) required to meet shore power system load, is given by Equation
1, accounting for GGL.
165 EPA eGRID How is GGL Calculated https://www.epa.gOv/egrid/egrid-questloiis-and-answers#egrid5aa
51
-------
. _ . Shore Power Demand
Total Generation =
1 - GGL
Equation 1
Table 11: 2018 eGRID annual emissions rates (Coastal and Great Lakes subregions).
Annual region emissions rate (g/kWh)
Subregion Name
NOx
SO2
CO2
CH4
N2O
CCheq
PM2.5
GGL
ASCC Alaska Grid
2.48
0.50
471.57
0.037
0.005
474.00
0.093
0.0512
ASCC Miscellaneous
3.50
0.31
238.17
0.011
0.002
239.03
0.355
0.0512
WECC Southwest
0.33
0.12
463.73
0.035
0.005
466.09
0.036
0.0480
WECC California
0.21
0.02
225.22
0.015
0.002
226.20
0.014
0.0480
ERCOT All
0.25
0.38
422.60
0.030
0.004
424.60
0.021
0.0487
FRCC All
0.16
0.13
422.68
0.030
0.004
424.63
0.029
0.0488
HICC Miscellaneous
3.46
1.80
503.80
0.054
0.008
507.60
0.420
0.0514
HICC Oahu
1.59
3.63
757.47
0.082
0.012
763.21
0.262
0.0514
MRO East
0.40
0.40
761.13
0.077
0.011
766.41
0.017
0.0488
MRO West
0.44
0.61
562.39
0.063
0.009
566.63
0.030
0.0488
NPCC New England
0.18
0.06
236.92
0.037
0.005
239.30
0.021
0.0488
WECC Northwest
0.26
0.17
289.86
0.029
0.004
291.82
0.017
0.0480
NPCC NYC/Westchester
0.11
0.01
270.53
0.010
0.001
271.14
0.033
0.0488
NPCC Long Island
0.39
0.11
537.16
0.063
0.008
541.18
0.028
0.0488
NPCC Upstate NY
0.06
0.04
114.81
0.008
0.001
115.16
0.008
0.0488
RFC East
0.15
0.22
324.76
0.028
0.004
326.58
0.022
0.0488
RFC Michigan
0.36
0.59
595.37
0.059
0.008
599.28
0.029
0.0488
RFC West
0.37
0.42
528.93
0.053
0.008
532.53
0.048
0.0488
SPP South
0.38
0.56
529.15
0.041
0.006
531.95
0.023
0.0488
SERC Midwest
0.48
1.13
754.85
0.084
0.012
760.57
0.029
0.0488
SERC South
0.22
0.13
466.26
0.037
0.005
468.77
0.016
0.0488
SERC Virginia/Carolina
0.20
0.12
337.17
0.030
0.004
339.07
0.023
0.0488
The May 2022 version of the Calculator includes improvements over the version 1 calculator
released in 2017. These include:
• Added forty-four new vessel types and engine loads, including size ranges within vessel
type.
• Updated vessel emission factors consistent with current EPA guidance (2022), including
engine tier and LNG emission factors.
• Added a new reference section that provides emission factor calculation formulas and
input data.
• Updated eGRID emission factors.
• Added latest eGRID PM2.5 emission factors.
• Updated CCheq weighting factors using IPCC Fourth Assessment Report GWPs.
• Added PM2.5 emission estimates to the primary outputs.
• Updated user guide integrated with the calculator.
• Added custom error messages and improved error handling.
52
-------
6 Conclusions
This report has characterized the technical and operational aspects of shore power systems in the
United States, summarized selected studies that evaluated shore power, and updated the
calculation approach for comparing shore power and vessel emissions while at-berth.
The approach presented in this report and the accompanying calculator is flexible enough to be
applied to nearly any port in the United States and, indeed, around the world, provided the
necessary inputs can be obtained. This report advises how users can obtain or estimate these
inputs. The approach presented here can be used to estimate potential reductions of harmful air
pollution emissions at U.S. ports through the use of shore power systems.
Finally, this report describes some of the experiences and lessons learned by ports that have
implemented shore power systems. These experiences highlight the need for flexibility in
designating locations of dockside vaults, reliability of components, grid connections and power
supply, the importance of on-time vessel scheduling and coordinating with utilities and funding
partners in advance.
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 fuels to shoreside
electricity, it may be cheaper to operate auxiliary engines rather than connect to shore power.
Furthermore, fleets must make substantial necessary investments in vessel-side infrastructure to
connect to shore power systems.
These barriers can be overcome by further research into ways of implementing or incentivizing
the use of shore power or other advanced emissions reduction technologies, and the provision of
public funds that enable ports to identify the technical feasibility of installing shore power
connections, as well as assist in funding infrastructure investments. Further, global harmonized
standards for shore power installations can reduce uncertainty for fleet owners and operators in
deciding what vessel-side infrastructure to adopt that will enable them to connect to shore power
53
-------
7 References
American Shipper. (2014). Shore power disruptor?
CARB. (2007). Technical support document: Initial statement 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.
Chang, C.-C. & Wang, C.-M. (2012a). Evaluating Hall, W. J. (2010). Assessment of CO2 and
priority pollutant reduction by installation of shoreside power Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, 54(7), 462-467.
Chang, C.-C. & Wang, C.-M. (2012b). Evaluating the effects of green port policy: Case study of
Kaohsiung harbor in Taiwan. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, 17(3), 185-189.
Cochran Marine (currently Watts Marine). (2015). Cochran Marine: Our experience. Retrieved
from https://www.watts-marine.com/
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, 5"C?Pittsford, NY: Energy
and Environmental Research Associates. Retrieved from
http://coastalconservationleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/EERA-Charleston-
Shoreside-Power-Report-.pdf.
ENVIRON. (2004). Cold ironing cost effectiveness study: Volume I report. Los Angeles
ENVIRON. (2013). Port of Oakland 2012 seaport air emissions inventory. Prepared for the 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
the Port of San Francisco.
ENVIRON. (2015b). Port of San Diego 2012 maritime air emissions inventory. Prepared for San
Diego Unified Port District.
EPA. (2022). Ports emissions inventory guidance: Methodologies for estimating port-related and
goods movement mobile source emissions. (EPA-420-B-22-011). April 2022. Available at
https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/port-emissions-inventory-guidance.
Foss. (2011). Campbell Foss hybrid marine po wer System functional specification.
Gillingham, K. T. & Huang, P. (2020). Long-run environmental and economic impacts of
electrifying waterborne shipping in the United States. Environmental Science &
Technology, 54(16), 9824-9833.
Hall, W. J. (2010). Assessment of CO2 and priority pollutant reduction by installation of
shoreside power. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54(7), 462-467.
ICF. (2009). Tug/towboat emission reduction feasibility study: Draft final report. Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
54
-------
IMO. (2020). Faber, J., S. Hanayama, S. Yuan., P. Zhang, H. Pereda, B. Comer, E. Hauerhof, H.
Yuan, et al. Fourth IMO GHG study 2020. International maritime Organization, London,
United Kingdom. https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Pages/Fourth-IMO-
Greenhouse-Gas-Study-2020.aspx.
Port of Hueneme. (2015). Port of Hueneme: Vessel Schedule. Retrieved from
http ://www.portofhueneme. org/vesselschedule/
Port of Los Angeles. (2014). Comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2014.
Port of Seattle. (2015). Cruise Seattle: 2015 sailing schedule. Retrieved from
https://www.portseattle.org/news/2015-cruise-season-embarks-port-seattle
Starcrest. (2013). 2011 Puget Sound maritime air emissions inventory (May 2013 update).
Prepared for Puget Sound Maritime Air Forum.
Starcrest. (2014a). 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.
Starcrest. (2014b). Inventory of air emissions for calendar year 2013: Technical report ADP#
131016-541.
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.
Vaishnav, P., Fischbeck, P. S., Morgan, M. G. & Corbett, J. J. (2016). Shore power for vessels
calling at US ports: benefits and costs. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(3),
1102-1110.
Yorke Engineering. (2007). Port of San Diego: Cold ironing study. Prepared for the Port of San
Diego.
55
-------
8 Acknowledgments
The information for this report was gathered by Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Energy &
Environmental Research Associates, LLC. on behalf of EPA. This work summarizes information
obtained from publicly available documents and interviews. EPA would like to thank and
acknowledge the support of these reviewers and contributors:
ERG staff: Richard Billings, Sean Van der Heijden, Rick Baker, and Jody Tisano
EERA staff: Edward Carr and James Winebrake
U.S. EPA Headquarters staff: Arman Tanman, Dennis Johnson, Eric Junga, Harold
Rickenbacker, Lauren Steele, Meredith Cleveland, Mike Moltzen, Sarah Froman, Sarah
Harrison, Stephanie Watson, and Travis Johnson
U.S. EPA Regional staff: Dan Birkett (EPA Region 2), Alan Powell (EPA Region 4), Francisco
Donez (EPA Region 9) and Karl Pepple (EPA Region 10)
CARB: Angela Csondes and Jonathan Foster
Cavotec: Janai Planck and Laurent Dupuis
Crowley Maritime: Greg Glover
U.S. Department of Energy - Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: David Hume
U.S. Department of Transportation - Maritime Administration: Travis Black
Port of Hueneme: Giles Pettifor
Port of Los Angeles: Amber Coluso
Port of New York / New Jersey: Charles Liou and Niko Martecchini (NYCEDC)
Port of Seattle: Ryann Child and David Fujimoto
U.S. Coast Guard: Thane Gilman
Watts Marine: Mike Watts
56
-------
Appendix A: Summary of 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 Cruises spent approximately $5.5
million to construct the shoreside facilities and
to retrofit the vessels (about $500,000 each).
Princess Cruises 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.
http://www.lbreport.com/port/coldi
ron.pdf
Los Angeles
$1.21 million DERA grant to install natural
gas-powered shore power system at the port
(DERA 2009-2010).
$23.73 million in Proposition IB funding from
the state of California for development of shore
power at 10 berths. Total cost of infrastructure
was ~$200 million.
The Ports 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-
technoloav.com/features/feature-
shore-power-green-answer-costlv-
berthing-emissions
EPA Grant:
https://www.epa.gov/dera/national
-dera-awarded-grants
Proposition IB:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/pro
grams/business/business-
detail?title=goods-movement-
emission-reduction-projects-
(prop-lb)&parent=vehicle-engine-
upgrades
Seattle
$1.49 million American Reinvestment and
Recovery Act (ARRA) grant in 2009 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%.
Combined emissions reductions for 36
cruise vessel calls by Princess Cruises and
Holland America Line in 2011 were 1,756
tons CC^eq.
Puget Sound Maritime Air
Emissions Inventory, 2012:
https://www.portseattle.org/progra
ms/puget-sound-maritime-air-
emissions-inventorv
EPA Grant:
https://www. eoa.gov/dera
A-l
-------
Appendix A: Summary of Studies of the Costs and Benefits of Shore Power
Port Name
Economic Costs and Benefits
Environmental Costs and Benefits (if
quantified)
Source Link
San Diego
Smaller ships visit San Diego ports and
electricity rates are higher than the Port of Los
Angeles. Cost effectiveness is $23,500/ton N0X
for cruise ships and for $13,700/ton N0X for
Dole vessels (reefers). The 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 CARB Carl Moyer grant in 2010
for shore power at the Cruise Ship Terminal.
Port of San Diego 2012 Maritime
Air Emissions Inventory Report:
https://pantheonstoraae.blob.core.
windows.net/environment/2012-
Maritime-Air-Emissions-
Inventorv.pdf
San Francisco
Electrical energy supply costs are a significant
consideration in the feasibility of shoreside
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 shoreside power while at
port than shipboard-generated electrical power.
The "break-even" point for this portion of the
cost is $0.05-0.10/kWh.
The port of San Francisco was awarded a $1
million grant from EPA to support shore power
installation.
$1.9 million CARB Carl Moyer grant (year 8/9
funding) for cruise ship shoreside power
installation.
Use of shore power leads to 61-81%
estimated reduction in emissions according
to ENVIRON's 2005 Shoreside Power
Feasibility Study for Cruise Ships Berthed
at Port of San Francisco.
Estimated emission benefits per 10-hour
ship call
1.3 tons NOx
0.87 tons SOx
19.7 tons C02
Port of San Francisco (2005)
Shoreside Power Feasibility Study
for Cruise Ships Berthed at Port of
San Francisco Table 4-14.
Funding and program details:
Mayor Newsom And The Port Of
San Francisco Inaugurate Cruise
Ship Using Shoreside Power
https://archive.epa.gov/region9/me
diacenter/web/pdf/sf-port-shore-
power.pdf
A-2
-------
Appendix A: Summary of Studies of the Costs and Benefits of Shore Power
Port Name
Economic Costs and Benefits
Environmental Costs and Benefits (if
quantified)
Source Link
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 is $16,000/ton.
$30 million in Proposition IB funding from the
state of California for shore power
development at 12 berths ($2.5 million/berth).
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. This number drops to
1,500,000 kWh for new builds to be cost
effective.
https://polb.com/download/20/shor
e-power-cold-ironina-
resources/6622/cold-ironina-cost-
effectiveness-studv-volume-i-and-
ii-100710.pdf
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."
https://www.areencarconaress.com
/2007/08/demonstration-o.html
https://www.portofoakland.com/fil
es/PDF/Volume%20I.pdf
Grants:
http://www.portofoakland.com/pdf
/newsroom/pressrel 319.pdf
Hueneme
CARB 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 the ports of Hueneme and
Los Angeles have lower electricity rates than
the 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 the Port of Hueneme to Los
Angeles and San Diego, CARB indicates
that the average cost-effective values for
Hueneme are the lowest, followed by San
Diego, then Los Angeles, 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 (i.e., six visits or
more) than the other two ports. Conversely,
Los Angeles has the highest average
installations. At 2 MW load, both Hueneme
and San Diego are more cost effective than
container ships using shore power at Los
Angeles or Long Beach.
EPA Grant:
https://archive.vcstar.com/business
/port-of-hueneme-awarded-
500000-epa-arant-for-power-
svstem-ep-458889712-
351407161.html/
A-3
-------
Appendix A: Summary of Studies of the Costs and Benefits of Shore Power
Port Name
Economic Costs and Benefits
Environmental Costs and Benefits (if
quantified)
Source Link
Boston
Mixed opinion about the use of shore power
for tug and push boats. The general consensus
is that shore power 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 the 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
https://www.portcompliance.ora/fi
les/TugBoatFinalReportv3.0.1.doc
EPA Grant:
https://www.epa.gov/dera/national
-dera-awarded-grants
Electricity to Berths at Fish Pier
Massachusetts Port Authority
DE-97120501-2
$400,000.00
6/23/ 2011
Brooklyn
In August 2011, the Port Authority of New
York and New Jersey 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, and New York
City Economic Development Corporation will
cover the difference in costs.
Expected annual emissions reductions:
6.5 tons of PM.
95.3 tons of NOx.
1,487 tons of greenhouse gases.
EPA grants provided under ARRA
from the 2009 National Clean
Diesel Funding Assistance
Program
New Bedford
The port was awarded $1 million from EPA
and $540,000 from the Federal Highway
Administration's Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality Improvement program to install
shore power at its commercial fishing piers.
-3,000 tons greenhouse gases avoided
annually.
Reduced diesel consumption of-310,000
gallons annually from using shore power.
https://nbedc.org/city-of-new-
bedford-gets-usl-million-for-
shore-side-power-electrification-
project/
A-4
-------
Appendix A: Summary of Studies of the Costs and Benefits of Shore Power
Port Name
Economic Costs and Benefits
Environmental Costs and Benefits (if
quantified)
Source Link
Philadelphia
Tugboat shore power has been implemented at
the Port of Philadelphia. Costs were
approximately $1 million in capital costs per
berth, with unknown capital costs per tug.
Total costs are also affected by the price
differential between electricity and bunker fuel.
ICF (2009) Tug/Towboat Emission
Reduction Feasibility Study. Draft
Final Report
https://www.portcompliance.ora/fi
les/TugBoatFinalReportv3.0.1.doc
Tacoma
Shore power at Tacoma's TOTE terminal is
estimated to reduce diesel particulate emissions
by 3.4 tons annually, NOx emissions by 24.5
tons, CO emissions by 2.1 tons, HC emissions
by 0.8 tons, and CO2 by over 1,360 tons
annually.
$1,488,080 DERA ARRA grant from EPA
(2011), with $1,101,303 in leveraged matching
funds from TOTE and partners.
Fifty jobs estimated to be created by the
shore power project.
https://westc0astc0llab0rative.0rg/f
iles/srants/2010/DERA-ARRA-
PortTacomaShorepowerFactSheet.
gdf
Other Resources
CARB (2020)
At-Berth
Regulation
Cost: $2.23 billion
Costs are approximately:
• $1.14/TEU for containers and reefers.
• $4.65 per cruise passenger.
• $7.66 per automobile (RORO).
• < $0.01 per gallon of finished oil
product (tanker).
Emissions reductions > 80%.
Benefits: $2.32 billion through reduced
cancer risk (-55%).
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/new-berth-
regulation-development
A-5
-------
Appendix B: User Guide: Shore Power Emissions Calculator
(note this appendix is the guide embedded in the calculator)
The shore power emissions calculator can calculate emissions of criteria and greenhouse gas
(GHG) pollutants based on vessel and fuel inputs, and the regional electricity grid mix. Shore
power emissions are estimated using emission factors from the United States Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) data
(1), and vessel emissions are estimated using emission factors from EPA's 2022 Port Emissions
Inventory Guidance (EPA, 2022) (2).
The calculator provides two primary operating modes:
• General Calculator
• User Entry Calculator
The General Calculator is appropriate for users who will be using default values for vessel, fuel,
and electricity grid parameters. The User Entry Calculator is appropriate for users who can supply
inputs to specify vessel characteristics and electricity generation emission factors.
User input is required in blue cells; calculator output is shown in grey cells in the Excel®
spreadsheet example. Non-user-input cells are locked, or protected, to avoid inadvertent changes.
Cells can be unprotected, if necessary, by selecting the "Review" menu at the top of the window
and clicking the "Unprotect Sheet" button. No password is required.
Footnotes can be found at the bottom of this document. You can access the calculator and read the
full user guide on EPA's Shore Power Technology Assessment at U.S. Ports webpage.
General Calculator
The General Calculator is found in the General Calculator tab and is available for users who will
be using default values for estimating shore power emissions. To use the General Calculator:
1. Select the General Calculator tab in the Shore Power Emissions Calculator Workbook.
2. Select the eGRID Region containing the port of interest using the dropdown menu. eGRID
regions are shown in the eGRID Region tab.
3. Select the Vessel Type using the dropdown menu. The user may select one of 53
combinations of vessel types and sub-types/sizes that are included, with more detail
available in the Vessel Type tab. Vessel sizes/subtypes are described in EPA (2022), Table
3.4. The Shore Power Emissions Calculator estimates emissions based on auxiliary engine
loads while hoteling.
4. Select the Fuel / Engine Tier using the dropdown menu. Available fuels include MGO
(0.10% S), MDO (0.50% S), HFO (3.50% S), and LNG. Tier 0 through Tier III NOx
controls are available for 0.10% S, 0.50% S, and 3.50% S fuels. (3)
B-l
-------
a. Engine Tier is determined based on the date that the vessel's keel was laid
(described in Table B-l of this document and included in the Engine Tier tab).
b. If the user is uncertain of engine tier, selecting Tier I is recommended based on the
assumptions used in the 2017 National Emissions Inventory.
c. The naming of marine fuels and their associated sulfur contents can, and has,
changed over time. If uncertain, users should select fuels based on sulfur content.
Table B-l: Engine tier by keel laid date.
Keel Laid Date
Engine Tier
1999 and earlier
Tier 0
2000-2010
Tier I
2011-2015
Tier II
2016 and later
Tier III
5. Populate the power, in kW, in the Hoteling Load (kW) field automatically based on default
operating loads for the vessel type selected. See EPA (2022), Table E.l, for additional
detail on assumed operating loads.
6. Enter the Number of Annual Vessel Calls that will be using shore power for each Vessel
Type entered. Note that the calculator assumes a single vessel for each vessel type selected.
7. Enter the Average Hotel Hours per Vessel Call.
8. Estimate quantities of emissions in metric ton (MT). Annual Energy Consumption (kWh),
Annual Vessel Power Emissions (MT), Annual Shore Power EGU Emissions (MT),
Annual Difference (MT), and Annual Percent Difference outputs are populated in the gray
cells. Negative differences show reductions in emissions, while positive differences show
increases in emissions.
9. Estimate CCheq using the Global Warming Potentials (GWP) of greenhouse gas species
from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, aligned with the EPA eGRID methodology.
(GWP for CO2 = 1, CH4 = 25, N2O = 298). For LNG fuels, sulfur emissions are estimated
as SOx! for all other fuels, sulfur emissions are estimated as SO2.
Vessel power emissions are calculated in columns J through N as:
Emissions = Vessel Fuel Emission Factor
x Aux. Engine Hotel Load
x No. of Annual Vessel Calls
x Average Hotel Hours
and shore power EGU emissions, incorporating grid losses, are calculated in columns J through N
as:
B-2
-------
Emissions = Electricity Generation Emission Factor
Aux. Engine Hotel Load
X
1 — Grid Gross Loss
x No. of Annual Vessel Calls
x Average Hotel Hours
Emissions of NOx, SO2, and PM2.5 are given in metric tonnes rounded to three decimal places.
Emissions of CO2 and CCheq are given rounded to the nearest whole number.
User Entry Calculator
The User Entry Calculator follows a similar format to the General Calculator, with additional
functionality allowing the user to specify alternate inputs for electricity generation emission
factors, vessel type and vessel fuel emission factors. To use the User Entry Calculator:
1. Select the User Entry Calculator tab in the Shore Power Emissions Calculator Workbook.
a. Select the eGRID Region containing the port of interest, or one of the two USER
DEFINED regions using the dropdown menu. eGRID regions are shown in the
eGRID Region tab. USER DEFINED region emission factors must be specified in
rows 31 and 32 in the eGRID Region tab.
2. Select the Vessel Type using the dropdown menu. The user may select one of 53
combinations of vessel types and sub-types/sizes or up to ten USER VESSEL types,
specified in the Vessel Type tab, rows 58-67. Users wishing to estimate the emissions from
harbor craft using low voltage shore power may customize one or more of these
unspecified USER VESSEL types for their fleet. When entering vessel power parameters,
the calculator reads from column F of the Vessel Type tab, corresponding to the load when
"hoteling." When entering USER VESSEL data, enter the expected power, in kW, used
during hoteling, calculated as Auxiliary Engine Hotel Loading (kW). Note: the calculator
only uses data for "Hoteling (kW)" (column F) from the Vessel Type tab.
3. Select the Fuel / Engine Tier using the dropdown menu. Available fuels include MGO
(0.10% S), MDO (0.50% S), HFO (3.50% S), and LNG. Tier 0 through Tier III NOx
controls are available for MGO, MDO, and HFO fuels. Users may also select up to two
USER FUEL-USER TIER auxiliary engine emission factors, which must be entered in
rows 21 and 22 of the Vessel Fuel Emission Factors tab, in g/kWh. (4)
a. The Engine Tier is determined based on the date that the vessel's keel was laid
(described in Table 1 of this document, and in the Engine Tier tab).
b. If the user is uncertain of engine tier, selecting Tier I is recommended based on the
assumptions used in the 2017 National Emissions Inventory.
c. Naming of marine fuels and their associated sulfur contents can, and has, changed
over time. If uncertain, users should select fuels based on sulfur content.
4. The Auxiliary Engine Hoteling Load (kW) field populates automatically based on assumed
operating loads for the vessel type selected, or user-entered USER VESSEL values.
5. Enter the Number of Annual Vessel Calls that will be using shore power for each Vessel
B-3
-------
Type entered. Note that the calculator assumes a single vessel for each vessel type selected.
6. Enter the Average Hotel Hours per Vessel Call.
7. Quantities of emissions are estimated in MT. Annual Energy Consumption (kWh), Annual
Vessel Power Emissions (MT), Annual Shore Power EGU Emissions (MT), Annual
Difference (MT), and Annual Percent Difference outputs are populated in the gray cells.
Negative differences show reductions in emissions, while positive differences show
increases in emissions.
CCheq is estimated using the GWPs of greenhouse gas species from the IPCC Fourth
Assessment Report, aligned with the EPA eGRID methodology (GWP: carbon dioxide
(CO2): 1, methane (CH4): 25, nitrous oxide (N2O): 298).
For LNG fuels, sulfur emissions are estimated as SOx; for all other fuels, sulfur emissions
are estimated as SO2:
Emissions = Vessel Fuel Emission Factor
x Aux. Engine Hotel Load
x No. of Annual Vessel Calls
x Average Hotel Hours
and shore EGU power emissions, incorporating grid losses, are calculated in columns P
through T as:
Emissions = Electricity Generation Emission Factor
Aux. Engine Hotel Load
x
1 — Grid Gross Loss
x No. of Annual Vessel Calls
x Average Hotel Hours
Emissions of NOx, SO2, and PM2.5 are given in metric tonnes rounded to three decimal places.
Emissions of CO2 and CCheq are given rounded to the nearest whole number.
Footnotes:
(1) U.S. EPA Emissions and Generation Resource Integration Database https://www.epa.gov/egrid
(2) EPA (2022) Ports Emissions Inventory Guidance: Methodologies for Estimating Port-Related and Goods
Movement Mobile Source Emissions Report EPA-420-B-22-011. April 2022. (https://www.epa.gov/state-
and-local-transportation/port-emissions-inventorv-guidance.) LNG emission factors for SO2 and CH4 are from
the Fourth IMO Greenhouse Gas Study, retrieved from: https://docs.imo.org
(3) and (4) NOx, SO2, PM2.5, CH4, N2O vessel emission factors are rounded to three decimal places. CO2 and
C02eq are rounded to the nearest whole number.
Additional Resources:
These resources contain additional vessel parameters for use in the "User Entry Calculator"
(1) CARB Update to Inventory for Ocean-Going Vessels at Berth (2019): Methodology and Results, Appendix
H. ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/ogvatberth2019/apph.pdf
(2) The Port of Los Angeles Annual Inventory of Air Emissions, www.portoflosangeles.org/environment/air-
qualitv/air-emissions-inventorv
B-4
------- |