1

�������������� ���

������ ���������� ���� �� ������� �������

___________________________________________________________________________

����������� �������������� ��

�������������������� �� ���� ������ ��� �� � �

12 January 2010

2

���������

Commercial ships calling at more and more ports worldwide can now turn off their diesel

engines and tap into cleaner energy sources provided by electrical connections from shore.

The technology to make this possible has been in place for over a decade. With a global

technology standard due to be ratified by three technical bodies in 2010, high-voltage shore

connections will soon get much more attention. Environmentally-minded ports, governments

and shipowners are all tuning in to the benefits of supplying electricity to ships at berth. ABB

presents the challenge, the technical solution and the business case for all parties involved.

������������������

Marcus Martelin, Director, Business Development at ABB Marine Services, &

Ismir Fazlagic, Product Manager, ABB AB

ABB is a leader in power and automation technologies that enable marine and utility

customers to improve their performance while lowering environmental impact.

Ryan Skinner, Senior Advisor, Say PR & Communications

Say PR & Communications is an Oslo-based specialist in international communications and

public relations for the shipping, energy and environment industries.

3

��� ���!���"��"���

I. Introduction

II. Environmental impact of commercial shipping

III. Regulations related to shore-based power connections

IV. Shore connection technology

a. Shore-side technology

b. Ship-side technology

V. Pros and cons of shore connections

VI. Standardization of shore-based power connections

VII. Business case arguments

a. Port authorities and terminal operators

b. Shipowners

c. Technology Suppliers

VIII. Conclusion

4

I. Introduction

Technology that allows commercial ships to connect to electricity supply from shore while in

harbour is getting more and more attention from port authorities, shipowners, industry

suppliers and regulators. The increase in interest results primarily from the environmental

benefits of using shore-based electrical power, but there are also economical benefits, as costs

related to fossil fuel consumption increase. Connection to shore-side electricity grids is a

well-established technology used by cruise ships calling America’s west coast and in selected

ports in Europe; with a new set of global shore-side electricity standards due for ratification in

2010, the practice is expected to expand rapidly in ports worldwide, and for all major ship

types.

Connecting merchant ships to shore-based electrical power while they are calling in ports is

one of many techniques to abate emissions in harbour areas. Other techniques include

scrubbers, catalytic reduction systems linked to the ships’ auxiliary power diesel engines and

use of low-sulphur marine fuels. When a ship is connected to shore-based electrical power, it

is able to turn off these engines with no interruption to typical services in port, such as loading

and unloading, hotelling or any other activities that consume power at the berth. The

connection and disconnection of the ship takes as little as 15 minutes and administration of

power supply and consumption is handled by the port operator.

Providing shore-based electricity to merchant ships in port requires a significant investment

(either via a retrofit of existing assets or in construction of new assets) by both the ships’

owners and the port owners or terminal operators. The ship requires an additional electrical

switchboard, cables connecting it to the ship’s main switchboard and, in many cases, a step-

down transformer. The port requires a switchboard with breakers and disconnectors, an

automated earthing switch, a transformer, (usually) a frequency converter, protection

equipment (such as protection relays) and communications equipment to link ship and shore.

Further, a cable-handling system is needed, but this can either be a ship-based or port-based

installation, depending on who is connecting to whom. Universal electrical standards for the

shore power connection have been drafted in unison by the IEEE, ISO and the IEC, and are

due for ratification in mid-2010.

5

Given the benefits of connecting ships to shore-based power, the availability of the

technology and its eminent standardisation, it is appearing increasingly in regulations and

discussions in the EU, the USA and the United Nations’ organ for maritime policy – the IMO.

Already, EU directive 2005/33/EG, which went into effect 1 January 2010, made ships using

shore-based electricity exempt from a rule related to use of reduced sulphur-content marine

fuels while in port. Legislation in the USA proceeds state-by-state; California, a regulatory

forerunner, has begun to require shore-side electricity connection for some ship types. At the

IMO level, new restrictions to sulphur content in fuels improves the economical case for

shore-based power, without explicitly mandating or supporting it.

This paper will explore the case for connecting merchant ships to shore-based power,

including the expected benefits, regulations, the technology on ships and on shore, shore-

based power standardisation and a brief look at the business case as seen from the perspective

of shipowners and port operators. Assertions related to technology for shore-side electrical

connections of ships to shore are based on ABB’s experience delivering this technology to

both ports and shipowners for approximately a decade.

II. Environmental impact of commercial shipping

A report called “Air pollution from ships” published by a number of environmental

organizations in Northern Europe described the challenge of ship emissions.

Emissions from ships engaged in international trade in the seas surrounding Europe –

the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, the north-eastern part of the Atlantic, the Mediterranean

and the Black Sea – were estimated at 2.3 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide (SO2), 3.3

million tonnes of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and 250,000 tonnes of fine particles (PM) a

year in 2000.

Under current legislation, it is expected that shipping emissions of SO2 and NOX will

increase by 40-50 per cent up to 2020, as compared to 2000. In both cases, by 2020 the

emissions from international shipping around Europe are expected to equal or even

surpass the total from all land-based sources in the 27 EU member states combined.

6

A 2007 paper in a peer-reviewed journal reported that ship emissions led directly to 60,000

deaths annually, mostly near coastlines in Europe, East Asia and South Asia. The number of

people whose health is impacted detrimentally by emissions from ships is certainly far

greater. The paper estimated the societal costs related to these fatalities alone at over EUR

200 billion.

At the core of the problem is the nature and quality of fuels used by the marine industry. This

fuel, referred to as bunker fuel, is one of the least pure products of the refining process. An

international convention that went into force in May 2005 limited the sulphur content of these

fuels worldwide (at sea and in port) at 4.5 per cent.

The vast majority of ship emissions are released within 400 kilometres of land. Coastal

regions along busy trade routes such as the English Channel and the Straits of Malacca show

the highest frequency of adverse health effects. Port areas are also particularly exposed to

these emissions, as ships calling in port currently use diesel auxiliary engines for their power

needs. Container ships can use as much as 6 MW during port operations, Ro-Ro/car carrier

vessels from 1 to 3 MW, and cruise ships up to 10MW. Port visits can last from just an hour

to several days. Total power consumption for all ships in a large port over a year can be

compared to total power consumption for some developing countries.

Major emissions coming from ships’ auxiliary engines include nitrogen oxides (NOX),

sulphur oxides (SOX), volatile organic compounds (VOC) and diesel particulate matter (PM).

While the content of these materials are controlled in ships’ fuel, the actual emissions are

currently uncontrolled for most ships.

The Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach commissioned a study of NOX emissions from ships

calling at their ports from 1 June 2002 to 31 May 2003. This study analyzed the relative

amounts of emissions created by ships’ main propulsion engines and their auxiliary engines.

This study demonstrated that as much as one-third of ships’ NOX emissions were created

while the ship was docked at the quay. These emissions amounted to an average of 13 tonnes

of NOX per day, which is equivalent to approximately 13 million cars’ emissions per day.

7

The cruise industry has been the focal point of studies related to emissions in or near port

areas, as they are large power consumers. A 2009 report for the European Commission on

cruise tourism1 explored the environment factor in cruise tourism, and specifically emissions

released in ports. This study reported that cruise ships in EU ports in 2009 released over

20,000 tonnes of NOX, 650 tonnes of SOX, 1 million tonnes of CO2 and 2000 tonnes of PM.

The study attached an economic cost to the EU’s largest ports in terms of cruise ship

emissions; in Barcelona, this equalled over EUR 35 million per year, in Naples EUR 23

million and Piraeus EUR 19 million.

Another study commissioned by the European Commission sought to compare the emissions

created by ships’ auxiliary engines with emissions created during the generation of an

equivalent amount of power at land-based power plants. This study demonstrated that shore-

based power supply reduced emissions of NOX, VOC and PM by at least 90 per cent,

compared to ships using their own auxiliary engines to create power.

In addition to the environmental impact of emissions to air, ships using auxiliary engines in

port create significant amounts of noise and vibration. While these effects are felt primarily by

passengers and workers in the port area, they can also significantly impact the local

environment in port areas. Noise and vibration are usually part of ports’ environmental

permits, and noise and vibration levels can effectively put a damper on port expansion in

some cases.

Comparing the relative merits of shore-based power generation and ship-based power

generation depends obviously on the nature of the feedstock and the nature of the power

generation. At one extreme, a ship running its diesel auxiliary engines on relatively clean fuel

will have a much smaller environmental footprint than a coal power plant producing the same

amount of electricity. At the other extreme, a ship running its engines on relatively dirty fuel

will have a much larger environmental footprint than a wind power plant producing the same

amount of electricity.

1 “Tourist facilities in ports: Growth opportunities for the European maritime economy: economic and environmentally sustainable development of tourist facilities in ports”; Socio-Economic Studies in the Field of the Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union; European Commission – Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, and executed by Policy Research Corporation; August 2009.

8

A life-cycle environmental analysis of ship-based power would include emissions related to

the extraction of crude oil, crude oil transportation, refining, transport of refined products and,

finally, consumption on the ship. A life-cycle environmental analysis of shore-based power

would include emissions related to the extraction of the power feedstock, its transportation,

electricity production, electricity transmission and, finally, ship consumption. Regulations and

new taxes related to the environmental impacts of these processes are increasingly making

environmental calculations part of ports’ and shipowners’ cost-benefit analyses.

III. Regulations related to shore-based power connections

As countries and cities realize that pollution stemming from the shipping industry has a high

economic cost related to mortality and reduced public health, regulators have increased their

attention on this industry. Since at least the late 1980s, the United Nations’ organ for maritime

policy, the IMO, has been discussing how to reduce the environmental impact of shipping (oil

spill prevention has a much longer history). National, city and port authorities are also

proceeding on their own initiative to regulate emissions generated by ships.

As of today, however, there is no law or rule requiring ships at port to connect to a shore-

based power supply; until shore-based power connections are standardized globally and such

connections are common in major ports, such a rule or law is unlikely to be passed. This

standardization hurdle is due to be overcome in 2010, leading to a much higher level of

adoption of shore-based power technologies. This, in turn, may lead to laws or rules

mandating shore-based power connections for ships while in port.

In Northern Europe, mapping of global emissions began on a large scale in the 1970s. As a

result of these studies, initial efforts to reduce emissions-based public health dangers such as

acid rain focused on land-based emissions sources. In the 1980s, this meant a focus on power

plants and automobile and truck traffic. However, as the studies showed higher levels of

deposition of pollutants in coastal areas and along major sea lanes like the English Channel

than could be accounted for by known polluters, it became clear that ships in international

transit were responsible for a considerable amount of pollution.

9

Sweden and Norway brought these studies to the attention of the IMO in 1988. Almost ten

years later, the IMO won acceptance for a convention (MARPOL Annex VI) that limited the

amount of pollutants in marine fuels. This convention did not go into effect until 2005.

The EU has acted on air emissions from ships in tandem with the IMO’s efforts. When the EU

was developing a strategy to deal with shipping-related in pollution 2001 and 2002, the

possibilities related to shore-based power for ships in port was already under discussion. This

resulted in a directive that requires all ships at berths in the EU to use marine fuels with a

maximum sulphur content of 0.1 per cent, with some exceptions. One of the exceptions to this

requirement was for ships using power from shore, which were obviously made exempt.

The EU has opted to pursue policy that does not favour any particular kind of abatement

technology, but rather reaches for overarching goals. In the case of shipping emissions, EU

legislation has prioritised cutting emissions that immediately impact health in areas close to

ports or major shipping lanes, but has taken a regional perspective. The lasting and

widespread effects of acidification and particulate pollution also drove legislation. Emission

of CO2 has not been in focus with respect to shipping, as carbon emissions have only a slight

impact on local health. The issue has been taken up at the EU and the IMO, particularly with

respect to a carbon emissions trading system, but nothing definitive has happened.

Compared to the EU, the Environmental Protection Agency of the state of California has gone

much further to stipulating shore-based power supply to berthing ships, although it provides

for alternative technologies. The California EPA’s web-site states:

In December 2007, the Board approved a regulation to reduce emissions from diesel

auxiliary engines on container ships, passenger ships and refrigerated cargo ships

while berthing at a California port. The regulation provides vessel fleet operators

visiting these port two options to reduce at-berth emissions from auxiliary engines: 1)

turn off auxiliary engines for most of a vessel’s stay in port and connect the vessel to

some other source of power, most likely grid-based shore power; or 2) use alternative

control technique(s) that achieve equivalent emission reductions.

Initially, this regulation only applies to a few vessel types, and within fleets that call at

California ports 25 or more times per year. Effectively, starting on January 1, 2010, any ship

10

that can connect to shore-based power and is part of an affected fleet must use shore power, if

it is available at the berth and is compatible with the ship’s equipment. The requirement for

2014 does away with the loopholes for ships not ready for shore power and sets a 50 per cent

fleet-wide maximum limit to power generated by auxiliary engines while docked. In 2017, the

figure increases to 70 per cent; in 2020, it is 80 per cent. (Further, any ship that is part of an

affected fleet must connect to shore power when it is available at the berth, from 2014).

The regulatory developments in the IMO, the EU and the state of California are being

followed closely by other jurisdictions, such as other American states and countries in Asia.

Generally, it is expected that regulatory authorities will set increasingly strict rules for

emissions from ships in port, increase taxes on sources of pollution and make exemptions for

shore-based power connections, without stipulating the use of shore-based power. The door

remains open to competing techniques to reduce port-area emissions, and will only be closed

when and if shore-based power gains widespread acceptance and has a strong economic

foundation.

IV. Shore connection technology

a. Shore-side technology

The technology required to provide shore-based power to ships at berth is not novel

equipment. Engineers today can use existing technology in order to develop a reliable

infrastructure to transport the power. Shore-based power demands rigorous technical attention

to issues such as safe cable-handling. Costs for the equipment range widely, depending on the

specific needs of the port and the power it will provide. Additional investments stem from

construction and installation at the quay and potential costs related to strengthening the port’s

electricity grid.

The picture of shore-based power infrastructure from the perspective of the port or terminal

operator can be broken down into seven basic elements:

1) Enabling the vessel’s power supply

2) A transformer for each ship’s power supply

3) Switchgear equipment such as breaker and disconnector for each ship’s power supply

4) An automated earthing switch for each ship’s power supply

11

5) A frequency converter, if power frequency needs to be stepped down from 50 Hz to 60

Hz or, vice-versa, stepped up

6) Communications equipment to link the ship and shore

7) Protection relays in order to assure safety for cable-handlers

Power supply in ports is typically equivalent to a small factory, with electricity needed to

power shore-side loading and unloading infrastructure such as cranes, belts and gantries,

cooling, heating and additional power for incidentals. Most ports have access to enough

power to run these consumers, with an additional 2-3 megawatts for incidental needs. Given

that each vessel’s power needs while in port may be as high as 2 megawatts (and may be as

much as 10 megawatts), the electrical infrastructure at many ports will be insufficient to

handle significant ship-to-shore connections without a major improvement to their grid. This

may involve investing in a new substation, or installing a new incoming power line with more

power; both of these actions would involve a negotiation with the port’s power provider.

For each shore-based power connection point, the port or terminal must have a dedicated

transformer. The transformer serves two purposes. First, it provides galvanic separation (a

non-metallic direct connection between the onshore power supply grid and the ship’s internal

system), so that an earthing fault in the ship will not endanger the land grid or vice-versa.

Galvanic separation is a requirement to shore-based power connections. Secondly, the

transformer steps down the voltage supply from a voltage level optimized for distribution (20

kilovolts, for example) to one of the two voltage levels standardised for shore-based power

connections: 11 or 6.6 kilovolts.

12

A typical layout of a 50 Hz quay-side transformer in port with harsh space limitations

Each shore-based power connection point also requires switchgear equipment with an

automated earthing switch. In essence, this switch ensures that there is no power in the cables

between the ship and shore, while they are being handled and connected. As the highest area

of risk associated with shore-based power connections is injury to personnel manipulating the

cables and systems, this system is critical.

A static frequency converter is required for most shore-based power connections. The

majority of ships operate with 60 Hz supply, whereas local power grids in many parts of the

world use 50 Hz. As a result, most shore-based power connections will require a frequency

conversion. Static frequency converters provide an economic solution to connect any ship to

any grid independent of the required frequency. Depending on the port’s layout, a centralized

solution with one converter may serve multiple ships and berths. Thanks to its small footprint,

the converters can fit into any substation building or container.

13

Medium-sized centralized solution with one or more converters in order to provide power to

quay-side transformers

Finally, the shore-side infrastructure for a shore-based power connection must include a

communications system allowing personnel on land to coordinate the connection of cables

and synchronizing the electrical load to the ship and off again. This can be arranged by two

computers – one on the ship and one on shore – with Ethernet communication and a fibre-

optic line incorporated in the cable connection.

As far as scarce quayside space is concerned, the shore-based power connection system need

not take up very much space. The substation has a large footprint, but it can be located as far

as 10 kilometres from the quayside transformer that will directly supply the vessel with

electricity. Quayside there is only a small and secure container-sized room that contains the

shore-based power transformer, the switchgear with an automated earthing switch and the

operator’s interface. The major benefit of a small quayside infrastructure is that it can be

made mobile.

b. Ship-side technology

14

In order to use power from the shore-based electricity grid, ships must be either built or

retrofitted with equipment that enables the connection to shore, synchronises the power

changeover from shore to ship and connects the incoming power supply to the ship’s auxiliary

power system. Ships can be retrofitted over a period of weeks while in operation, or as

quickly as a week at a shore-side berth.

First and foremost, the shore-based power needs to get onboard via cables. In some cases,

particularly container ships and Roll-On/Roll-Off car carriers, the cable is installed on the

ship, and lowered via a spool or drum to the quay, where it is connected. On cruise ships, the

cables are always shore-side, and need to be lifted by a crane to make the connection onboard

the ship.

The cable to the shore side power supply is handled with a dedicated cable management

system

When the cable-handling system is on shore, the electrical connection is received shipside by

a shore connection panel. This panel must generally be located close to the hull and in

convenient reach of the heavy shore-side cables. The shore connection panel contains a circuit

breaker, a protection relay, the physical electrical connection (plugs and grounding cable) and

15

a control interface with the ship’s integrated automation system, or power management

system. These systems allow the incoming power to be synchronised with the ship’s diesel

auxiliary engines before the load is transferred. Shore connection panels provided by ABB

include two cabinets, the dimensions of which vary depending on the power rating. This

medium-voltage equipment needs to be installed in a dedicated room that can be locked.

On ships that use conventional mechanical propulsion (in which the diesel engines directly

power the ship’s propellers, as opposed to diesel electric propulsion), the ship’s low-voltage

auxiliary power system – typically 400 to 690 volts – requires a transformer to receive the 11

kV or 6.6 kV power supply from shore. This transformer is relatively large and bulky, but –

unlike the shore connection panel – it can be installed in the engine room, or any other

suitable location onboard.

The Shore Connection System is arranged with the Shore Connection Panel located outside

the main switchboard room with cable connectors mounted in the front. An onboard

transformer steps down the power from high to low voltage.

The process of connecting and disconnecting a ship to the shore-based power supply takes

half an hour at the most, and five minutes at the least. Onboard, the chief engineer or some

other personnel familiar with the ship’s power management system handle the power transfer.

Cable-handling can be done either by ship personnel or shore personnel, with adequate

training to prepare for handling medium-voltage equipment. At least one company has begun

investigating an automated system for plugging the cables into the ship, for safety and time-

saving reasons.

16

Today the majority of ships equipped with infrastructure to take shore-based power are

container vessels, and many ship designers are either including this infrastructure in their

designs or setting aside space for it. Ships in operation today with shore connection equipment

have generally been retrofits (adding equipment to an existing vessel), rather than built with

the equipment installed.

While little of the technology installed onboard ships for shore-based power supply is new,

the entire system must generally be engineered on a case-by-case basis for each installation.

Even if the connection is standardised, ship design is not, meaning that questions of space,

accessibility, interfacing with the power management system and the diesel engines all need

to be surveyed and assessed prior to installation. ABB, however, has developed turnkey

services covering the entire scope of delivery, with minimal interruption of ship operations.

V. Pros and cons

For port operators and shipowners, the merits of shore-side connection versus competing

emissions-abatement technologies are debatable, and it is difficult for investors to calculate

long-term return on investment, as the regulatory picture changes. Fluctuations in the price of

marine bunkers fuels compared to shore-based electricity also throw off calculations.

Advantages to shore-based power supply stem from the environmental profile of electricity

generated by power plants on land versus ships’ diesel engines running on bunker fuels.

Generally, when power production can be reduced to as few producers as possible, these

producers can more easily and efficiently be optimised and made environmentally friendly.

Another argument for shore-based power supply is the advantage of jurisdiction. With shore-

based power arrangements, regulators can deal with a specific, local problem of pollution with

a specific, local response. Efforts to capture emissions from auxiliary diesel engines can be

used throughout a ship’s operations worldwide, but it takes away any scope of action by local

or regional authorities.

17

For ports, the ability to supply power to ships at berth enables them to establish a more

efficient and powerful overall electrical supply as a utility. Where ports need to use frequency

converters, these provide both a stabilizing effect on the local grid and an improved power

factor. Effectively, this means the local power system experiences lower losses.

Shore-based power supply has an advantage to other emissions abatement technologies in that

it reduces both noise and vibration in port areas. This is to the benefit of merchant mariners,

port workers and the immediate community of ports, particularly large ones. Some ports have

encountered growth constraints related to their environmental permits, as their operations’

emissions, noise or vibration levels get too high.

Finally, shore-based power supply is easily scalable; infrastructure investments last for

decades with relatively little maintenance, and long-term revenues. For each new port that

invests in high-voltage shore connections, the cumulative value of the technology increases by

a factor, as more and more ships and sailing schedules are impacted.

Arguments against shore-based power supply are related to the provenance of the shore-based

power, the costs of investing in infrastructure and safety and efficiency concerns in port

operations. Studies have shown that switching from ship-based diesel power generation to

onshore coal-powered electricity has a negligible environmental benefit (with increases in

particulate matter and, potentially, sulphur-oxides). With any other kind of power supply, the

benefits are considerable; renewable energy sources, in particular, improve port operations’

environmental footprint.

The costs of investing in shore-based power infrastructure are considerable, and a template for

how governments, port or terminal operators and shipowners share these costs has not been

established. At the port of Gothenburg, for example, a ship charterer determined to improve

the environmental profile of its supply chain invested in the infrastructure. At the Port of

Long Beach and Los Angeles, which are owned by the local government, port infrastructure is

financed by taxpayer dollars. As the cost of emissions and regulations preventing them

increase, however, funds will increasingly be made available from private and public sources.

Safety and efficiency concerns in port operations cannot be neglected in a study of shore-

based power supply. Particularly in the instance of container terminals, with large, rolling

18

gantry cranes, there are issues about the placement of cables and shore-side infrastructure. In

ports, space is at a premium. Additionally, both port operators and shipowners are concerned

with the possibility for injuries or deaths related to power connection. Hopefully, the

introduction of strict shore connection standards and technical solutions that ensure safe

cable-handling will allay these concerns.

VI. Standardization of high-voltage shore connection systems

In order for high-voltage shore connection systems to make sense for ports and shipowners,

the nature and arrangement of power connections must be standardised. Neither a port nor a

shipowner can justify investment in expensive equipment to enable high-voltage shore

connection systems without assurance that such a system will be functional across many

jurisdictions and for a defined period of time.

Work on a common standard for high-voltage shore connection systems for ships at berth

began early in 2005. Major players in the effort for a common standard have included

technology suppliers, governments, port authorities, shipowners (particularly cruise lines,

tanker and container ship companies), classification societies and others.

Work began under the auspices of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), after

a meeting in Delft in February 2005. The following year the International Organization for

Standardization (ISO) began studying these standards as well, and – on the initiative of the

IMO – these two groups were united in 2007. Early in 2009, the final authority – the Institute

of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) – joined the same standardization effort. With

a joint IEC, ISO and IEEE standard, shore-based power connections would effectively have a

water-tight global basis.

Work on a standard for high-voltage shore connection systems began by determining the

limitations to such a standard. The standard applies to the specification, installation and

testing of high-voltage shore connection systems and plants and addresses:

• The high-voltage shore distribution system,

• The shore-to-ship connection,

• Transformers/reactors,

19

• Semiconductor converters and rotating converters,

• Ship distribution systems, and

• Control, monitoring, interlocking and power management systems.

The intention of the standards work was to define requirements that “support, with the

application of suitable operating practices, compliant ships to connect quickly to compliant

high-voltage shore power supplies through a compatible shore to ship connection.” This will

hopefully avoid the need for ships or port operators to adapt or adjust their infrastructure to

enable connections.

Although work began with the goal of creating a single, global connection standard for all

ships at all ports, this was abandoned out of necessity. The power needs and capacities of

ships differ so much that a single standard would be unfeasible. As a result, the standards

work eventually settled on four separate, but linked, standards – one for Ro-Ro ships, one for

container ships, one for cruise ships and another for tankers. In addition, there are two main

standard voltages for connection – 11 kilovolts and 6.6 kilovolts. System voltage is limited to

15 kilovolts.

Early in 2010, the three standardisation bodies will conclude their work on the global standard

and publish its work for final comments. A publicly-available specification (PAS), which is a

recommendation of the true copy of the final standard, is available for a small sum from the

web-sites of the ISO and IEC. The final standard is approved by the ISO and IEC, and is due

for approval by the IEEE by summer 2010.

With a global standard in place, investment in shore-based power connection systems by ports

and shipowners is due to take off. Currently, there are many undertaking studies into such

investments, in preparation for the day when a global standard is in place. This is confirmed

both anecdotally by port operators and suppliers, and quantitatively by the purchase of the

PAS via IEC and ISO.

VII. Business case arguments

a. Port authorities and terminal operators

20

Over the past decade, ports’ attitudes towards shore-based power supply have changed from

one of resistance to one of ready acceptance. Early movers, such as the Port of Gothenburg,

were met with incredulity when their shore-based power plans were shared with other ports;

now these same ports are expert sources and references for many ports, who are quickly

learning about the technology and assessing it for their own operations.

In order for many ports to justify the investment, they need to be able to provide shore-based

electricity at a cost that is competitive, after investment in the infrastructure, with bunker oil

supply. When oil prices spiked in 2008, this equation leaned heavily in favour of shore

electricity. After oil prices subsided, the equation became more muddled. Many countries

have considered negating electricity tax on power used for shore-based power supply to ships

in port. Sweden’s government, for example, has proposed to remove the tax on electricity for

shore-based power supply to ships starting in 1 June 2010. Additionally, carbon taxes on

bunker fuel may, in the future, impact the equation.

A shore-based power questionnaire of 53 ports published by the World Ports Climate

Initiative indicated that just over 10 per cent provided high-voltage shore connections and 85

per cent would invest in the technology within five to ten years. Their main arguments for

expanding investment in shore-based power were the environmental benefits (85 per cent),

reputation and goodwill (63 per cent), the benefit to society (48 per cent) and their customers’

interest (35 per cent).

b. Shipowner

For shipowners, the business case for shore-based power supply vary considerably. To cruise

ship owners transiting major cruise terminals on the US west coast (where environmental

awareness is high and many ports are equipped for shore-based power), the business case is

more positive for investing in the ship-board infrastructure. To container shipowners that call

at dozens of ports (most of which lack shore-based connections), the business case is

obviously less rosy.

21

Ships with high power demands, such as cruise ships, LNG carriers, refrigerated ships and

ferries, have a clearer business case than ships with smaller power demands. The former are

also frequently diesel-electric powered, which enables ship installation without a large and

costly extra shipboard transformer.

Piero Susino is the technical director at Princess Cruises, which pioneered shore-based power

use in Juneau, Alaska and has now used as much as 50 GW-hours from 750 shore connections

by 10 shore-power equipped ships. He described Princess’ experiences: “We have tried to be

pro-active in working to keep the environment clean by developing shore power capabilities

when the ships are in port. The incentive has not been economic, though. In the start, we

helped fund the shore-side infrastructure, but now we expect the land-side to take care of its

own investments.”

Susino has led shipowners’ input to standardization processes in the ISO and IEC, and expects

global standards to boost adoption of the technology. “For us, this started because authorities

in Alaska were increasingly enforcing reduction of smoke emissions, and we at Princess

Cruises wanted to do our part to protect the environment. Now shipowners and ports are

pushing it forward, as well, to meet every stricter air quality standards. And it’s not just cruise

ships. We see major tanker owners and container ship companies getting involved here in

California.”

c. Technology suppliers

Today there are only a small handful of suppliers with experience installing shore-based

power infrastructure on ships or on shore. Among the largest suppliers are those that typically

supply electrical systems to shipowners, such as ABB and Siemens. There are approximately

a half-dozen or so companies supplying solutions for cable-handling and shore-based power

infrastructure.

While much of the technology that constitutes a shore-based power supply system is standard

marine equipment, suppliers need significant experience on shipboard installations and power

management systems in order to plan and install an efficient solution.

22

The number of contracts for supply of ship-based infrastructure, or shore-based infrastructure,

is so far modest. Less than 20 ports worldwide are currently equipped with high-voltage shore

connection infrastructure, and roughly 100 ships worldwide are equipped to receive these

connections. Despite this slow pick-up, many ports and shipowners are making plans for the

investment, in preparation for the ratification of a global standard for shore connections. Once

a global standard is in place, the market is expected to expand quickly.

VIII. Conclusion

In an article published just before Christmas 2009, the boss of the United States’

Environmental Protection Agency said: “There are enormous health and environmental

consequences that come from marine diesel emissions, affecting both port cities and

communities hundreds of miles inland.” The environmental impact of ship-borne emissions

has been described and made manifest in numerous scientific studies worldwide; port areas

and busy shipping lanes are particularly impacted.

In order to improve the environmental footprint of port areas, governments, port authorities

and shipowners have explored different solutions to reduce emissions from ships while they

are engaged in port operations. One of the leading solutions to this problem has been

identified as connecting ships in port to a shore-based power supply, where electricity from

the land grid is used to power ships’ hotelling and cargo-handling activities.

High-voltage shore connections have been implemented in approximately two dozen port

terminals worldwide starting in 2000, and on over 100 ships ranging from cruise vessels to oil

tankers and container ships. Countless other port operators and shipowners are assessing an

investment in the technology, on the condition that global standards for the shore connection

come into place. Work in global standards bodies – the ISO, IEC and IEEE – is underway and

a global standard is expected to be in place by mid-2010.

ABB has engineered both shore-side and ship-side high-voltage connections, and is one of the

few companies worldwide that has developed a reference list in this technology. Single shore-

side connection points can be engineered and installed in the span of six months to one year;

23

ship-board installations can be engineered over a period of months and installed in the span of

one week.

Acceptance and investment of shore-based power supply infrastructure has been limited due

to the lack of a global standard. A publicly-available specification is already available, and

this is being used by shipowners and port operators to assess future installations. Existing

technology solutions are largely built up around these specifications.

Regulatory moves by local, national and international bodies that spur adoption of shore-

based power supply include taxes on fossil fuels, requirements to marine fuels and stipulation

of shore-based power supply (or alternatives with equivalent emissions reductions). Leading

the way in terms of regulation are the United States (particularly the state of California and

Port of Long Beach and Los Angeles), the EU and the International Maritime Organization.

Sweden has begun talks to allow ships using shore-based electrical power to forgo tax on the

electricity that they buy.

Shore-based power supply for ships in port is in most instances a practical and effective

means to reduce emissions in heavily trafficked port areas. The technology is available, but its

adoption is contingent upon its being available at a large number of ports, and in a large

number of ships. ABB has developed scalable and flexible installation solutions that meet the

needs of shipowners and ports. Finally, it is believed that a global standard will bring about a

much higher level of investment in the infrastructure, thus stimulating an ever greater number

of shipowners and port operators to make their operations ready for shore-based power

supply.