A report published on 9 October 2026 by reports highlights a growing tension in the drive to electrify ships at berth: shore power offers clear environmental benefits but its cost is anything but straightforward.
Shore power, sometimes called cold ironing, allows vessels to plug into the local electricity grid and switch off diesel auxiliary engines while alongside, cutting emissions at berth and improving air quality in port areas. The principle is simple, yet the practical economics vary sharply between jurisdictions, the report finds.
Different pricing models across Europe, China and the United States are a central obstacle to broader adoption. Where the technical connection is available, charges for using shore power can differ by structure and level, creating uncertainty for shipowners and terminal operators weighing investment choices.
Costs versus benefits
Operators and local communities stand to gain from reduced particulate and nitrogen oxide emissions, and the environmental case for electrifying berths is widely accepted. The report underscores that those air quality and emissions benefits do not automatically translate into an easily calculable commercial return for ship operators.
Charges for shore power provision can include a combination of connection fees, energy tariffs, network or grid access charges and sometimes demand-related levies, depending on the country and the local market arrangements. That complexity makes it difficult to compare the effective price of plugging in with the cost of running onboard engines while at berth.
Regional variation
In Europe, China and the United States the mechanisms for setting prices differ, meaning the headline tariff is only part of the picture. The report describes the patchwork of approaches as a factor that discourages standardised contracting and complicates fleet planning.
These differing frameworks also affect who bears the initial infrastructure cost and how long it takes for investment to be recouped. Where grid upgrades or dedicated shore-power equipment are required, the balance between public subsidy, terminal investment and shipowner contribution becomes decisive for uptake.
Commercial and operational barriers are compounded by scheduling and compatibility challenges. Vessels vary in power demands and connector standards, and ports can experience spikes in simultaneous demand that call for either reinforcement of local grids or expensive demand-management measures.
The report does not offer a single solution but signals that predictable, transparent pricing is a prerequisite for scaling shore-power use. Without clearer cost signals, shipping and terminal actors are likely to delay electrification investments or prefer interim measures that do not fully eliminate emissions at berth.
Policymakers and regulators have a role in shaping the economics, the report suggests, by clarifying who pays for what and by supporting the infrastructure needed to manage increased electrical loads. Harmonising technical standards and commercial arrangements would reduce transaction costs and make comparisons across ports and trades more feasible.
The immediate consequence of continuing price fragmentation is slower progress towards the air quality and emissions goals associated with shore power. For ports and coastal communities seeking rapid improvement in local air quality the lesson is that technical readiness alone is insufficient; affordable, transparent charging models are equally important.
The reports item serves as a timely reminder that decarbonisation at berth is as much an economic and regulatory challenge as it is a technical one. Bridging that gap will require co‑ordinated action from grid operators, port authorities, terminals, ship operators and national regulators to make the cost of plugging in predictable and fair.
Editor profile