DNV at Posidonia: Shore power shifting from voluntary energy-saving measure to compliance requirement

Shore power is shifting from a local environmental measure to a key operational and regulatory consideration for shipowners, according to DNV’s latest white paper “Shore Power in Shipping: Technology, regulation and implementation.” As regulatory pressure builds in Europe, California and parts of Asia, access to shore power is shaping compliance and operating costs during port stays.

Historically a voluntary option for saving energy and reducing emissions in ports, shore power is becoming part of baseline compliance considerations for many shipowners. The technology is mature and can deliver immediate, measurable reductions in noise, fuel use, and emissions during port stays by replacing auxiliary engine operation. However, uneven deployment means shipowners must make route-specific and berth level decisions when planning operations, particularly where penalties apply for not using shore power when it is available.

To help shipowners navigate these complexities, DNV's white paper outlines how regulatory exposure, technical suitability, berth-level availability, and operational factors translate into cost and emissions impacts.

Cristina Saenz de Santa Maria, CEO Maritime at DNV, said: “Shore power can deliver immediate, measurable emissions reductions by reducing the need to burn fuel while at berth. However, uptake remains constrained by a mismatch between ship and port readiness. Ports hesitate to invest without predictable demand, while shipowners delay retrofits without reliable berth-level availability. Accelerating adoption will depend on regulatory clarity, public co-funding, and targeted incentives working in parallel.”

DNV’s white paper finds that shore power's potential impact on fuel savings is significant. Analysis suggests it could reduce global fleet fuel-oil consumption for ships above 5,000 gross tonnage (GT) by 3.5%, equivalent to approximately 9.24 million tons of fuel and around 29 million tons of CO₂ annually. However, this reflects auxiliary-engine use during port stays and does not fully replace onboard energy demand in all cases, particularly where oil-fired boilers remain in use during port stays

Despite this, current industry readiness is highly fragmented with around 29% of cruise vessels and 20% of container ships equipped with shore power connections, compared to 7% of bulk carriers and 1% of tankers. Port-side availability is highly limited, with around 3% of global ports offering shore power infrastructure, primarily concentrated in Europe, China and the US.

Amidst these gaps in infrastructure and readiness, the regulatory landscape is tightening. Under FuelEU Maritime, shore power-capable container, passenger, and cruise vessels above 5,000 GT will be required to connect in key European ports from 2030, with penalties applying where shore power is available but not used. FuelEU Maritime is also among the regulatory frameworks that strengthen incentives for ports to expand shore power infrastructure and improve access to low-emission electricity at berth.

Shore power can therefore help reduce compliance costs by lowering emissions during port stays, while supporting overall emissions performance. Similar measures are emerging in California and parts of Asia, linking the use of shore power during port stays to compliance and cost exposure. Taken together, these developments point to shore power capability becoming a determining factor for operating in certain trades towards the end of the decade.

Jason Stefanatos, Global Decarbonization Director at DNV, said: “The business case for shore power depends on how and where a ship operates. For some segments, reducing auxiliary engine use can lower maintenance demand and improve operational predictability alongside noise and emissions reductions. For others, shorter port stays and lower electrical demand change the economics. Complexity also varies, particularly for tankers, where hazardous-area considerations and the need to align on connection point locations can increase complexity and influence adoption timelines. This is why investment decisions need to be grounded in berth-level realities rather than general port availability.”