Plug in or Pay up?
Understanding costs and benefits of shore power to determine when it makes economic sense
By 2030, containerships and passenger ships in Europe are required to use shore power under FuelEU Maritime. In the same year, the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation (AFIR) mandates that 90% of port calls by ships above 5,000 GT at TEN-T ports must be electrified. Meeting these targets in just a few years demands enormous investments in both port infrastructure and ship retrofits. In fact, achieving this transition will take far more than money. It requires time, specialized knowledge and organizational capabilities that many actors in the maritime industry are still struggling to build. Certainly the screws are tightening for both port authorities and shipowners, but one pressing question remains unclear: “what does it all cost?”.
This article examines that question in three steps. It first quantifies the scale of demand and potential revenue streams for ports and energy suppliers. It then breaks down the main cost components for shipowners (fuel, electricity, EU ETS, FuelEU Maritime, and the forthcoming IMO Net-Zero framework) to determine the break-even electricity price where shore power becomes the cheaper option. Finally, it applies this framework to a 2,500 TEU feeder containership sailing on two realistic EU routes to show how operational patterns and regulatory exposure shape the outcome.
The results are clear. For ports, the Total Addressable Market (TAM) for shore power represents a recurring revenue opportunity of roughly €2 billion per year across the EU. For shipowners, the economics are route-dependent but increasingly favourable. On average, shore power can already deliver cost savings from 2025 onwards, particularly for ships trading entirely within the EU. By 2030 - when FuelEU penalties rise and IMO Net-Zero takes effect - the financial case becomes decisive, with potential cumulative savings of over $17 million for a single feeder vessel operating on short-sea loops.
Explore the interactive model and assumptions in the sections below, and sign up to download the tool and databases themselves. Members and premium users can readily change, download and adjust all parameters in the model for their own analyses.
Members only
Analyze your ship
Premium users only
The size and value of shore power in Europe
Previous analysis by EOPSA and Sustainable Ships on shore power demand in 2030 shows the Total Addressable Market (TAM) for shore power in EU ports is substantial: between 6 and 13 terawatt-hours (TWh) per year. To put this in perspective, only 51 ports across 15 coastal Member States currently provide shore power, with a combined capacity of just 309 MW, concentrated mainly in passenger and cruise terminals. In other words, the installed capacity is a fraction of what is needed to comply with upcoming regulations.
In practical terms, Europe must build the equivalent electricity demand of a small country, and deliver it directly into ports - essentially from scratch - within the next five years.
Achieving this will require extensive new shore-side infrastructure, as well as significant grid reinforcements. To comply with regulatory requirements, Europe will need to at least triple, and likely quadruple, its installed shore power base, with Italy, Spain, and France facing the steepest investments. At the same time, this enormous challenge also provides an enormous potential revenue stream for energy companies.
Assuming an electricity price of €0.35 per kWh, the annual revenue potential of supplying shore power to ships in EU ports lies between €2.1 and €4.5 billion. This represents a sizeable, recurring revenue stream for utilities and port operators, but one that depends entirely on timely uptake by shipowners.
The critical question, therefore, is not whether the demand exists - it clearly does – but when shipowners will decide to switch. If ports and power providers move too far ahead of shipowners, they risk underutilised infrastructure and stranded investments. If they wait too long, they face capacity shortages and congestion when demand finally surges. Timing will determine who captures this market.
Breaking down shore power costs for a Shipowner
It is nice for energy companies that shore power revenues in Europe alone can be billions of euros per year, but that does not help shipowners and operators answer their most pressing questions: when does it actually make sense to connect my ship? Do I do it now, or do I wait until 2030? And what will it cost? To answer these questions, the individual cost components of shore power must be determined and broken down in detail.
The breakdown of shore power costs highlights several important insights.
CAPEX and maintenance are negligible on a lifecycle basis. Retrofit expenses are one-off, often marginal when spread across 15 years, and savings from reduced engine wear are small compared to the main operational cost drivers.
Compliance costs dominate the equation. Of these, FuelEU typically has the largest financial impact, followed by the upcoming IMO Net-Zero framework. Both measure full-year GHG intensity, so even partial use of shore power improves compliance across an entire voyage profile, not just at berth.
Electricity price is decisive in the next years. At the assumed benchmark of €0.35 per kWh, shore power can already provide cost savings from 2025 onwards in certain scenarios, particularly for vessels with itineraries fully inside the EU. The savings become most pronounced after 2030 however, when FuelEU penalties escalate and IMO Net-Zero costs are added on top. From that point, the financial case for shore power strengthens significantly, making it the cheaper option in nearly all realistic conditions, also outside the EU.
-
The main OPEX component for any ship is energy consumption, whether through fuel burned in auxiliary engines or electricity purchased from the grid. In this analysis, both sailing and port stays are considered, since using shore power affects a vessel’s overall GHG intensity across the entire year, not only while moored. On a pure cost basis, electricity produced onboard by fuel combustion is generally cheaper: around €0.15 to €0.20 per kWh compared with €0.35 per kWh assumed for shore power throughout this article. This cost gap (using shore power is roughly twice as expensive when comparing fuel only) is precisely why additional policy instruments - ETS, FuelEU, and IMO Net-Zero - are required to shift shipowners toward plugging in.
-
When plugged in, auxiliary engines are turned off, which slashes costs for engine maintenance (primarily crew man-hours) and consumables (lubricants, gaskets, filters, and other wear-and-tear items). Although this a minor component compared to fuel and compliance costs, these savings can become significant for larger auxiliary engines, particularly those above 2 MW, or when multiple units can be switched off simultaneously. In the case study used in this article, maintenance and consumables costs are negligible.
-
The EU and UK Emissions Trading System (EU ETS and UK ETS) are a de facto carbon tax for shipowners, as they directly penalize CO₂ emissions on a Tank-to-Wake basis. Switching to clean shore power avoids these emissions when at berth, saving approximately €300 per ton of fuel consumed (assuming ~ €75 per allowance). ETS is a rather simple system when compared to FuelEU or IMO Net-Zero, and for this analysis only the fuel (or rather emissions) saved at berth incur cost savings, as fuel consumed while sailing is unaffected by shore power.
-
FuelEU Maritime is a complicated regulation that has come into effect in 2025, with quite some incentives (and sticks) when it comes to shore power. Compliance costs are based on the vessel’s annual Well-to-Wake GHG intensity, which includes energy use while sailing and mooring. Because shore power improves this annual GHG intensity, savings will be incurred for the entire year and over all operational modes, including sailing. Because it is an EU regulations only 50% of energy of voyages coming from and to the EU are taken into account. This means that the ship itinerary and port calls heavily affect the outcome of FuelEU penalties. Of all the cost components, FuelEU and IMO Net-Zero are typically the most significant ones.
-
The IMO’s global Net-Zero framework is expected to come into force in 2028, pending approval in late 2025. Similar to FuelEU, it calculates GHG intensity on an annual basis and penalises shipowners above defined thresholds. In this analysis, IMO Net-Zero costs are assumed to stack on top of FuelEU, although discussions are ongoing about harmonisation between the two regulations. Until these are fixed or more about them is known, IMO Net-Zero is considered a significant cost component when it comes to shore power.
-
Beyond OPEX, capital expenditure is often required to retrofit ships for shore power use. Typical items required onboard include onboard transformers (to adapt to the correct voltage and ensure galvanic protection), switchboard modifications, high-voltage connection interfaces, and related engineering and integration costs. CAPEX costs are highly ship-specific and vary significantly, although on a life-cycle basis the CAPEX costs are typically negligible. For some vessels, retrofits may already be in place, in which case OPEX alone determines the decision.
Break-even Electricity Price
Considering that electricity prices are a decisive factor in the cost balance, especially in the period until 2030, the next question is clear: at what price does shore power actually become cost-effective compared to burning fuel? This is the critical benchmark for shipowners and ports alike: the price point below which plugging in saves money, above which costs are incurred. Understanding this price point gives shipowners a clear reference when negotiating electricity tariffs in port or with terminal operators.
As stated previously, the break-even point has historically been around €200 per MWh (or €0.20 per kWh) the typical cost of producing electricity with auxiliary engines burning marine fuel. Maintenance and consumables costs are typically not significant when compared to this price point (~ €0.03 per kWh). The decisive shift comes with upcoming regulations that introduce compliance penalties, i.e. ETS (EU or UK), FuelEU and IMO Net-Zero.
As a rule of thumb, EU regulations are expected to double the break-even price for shore-side electricity by 2030, and nearly triple it by 2040 when IMO Net-Zero penalties are layered on top. This means that even if the cost of electricity in port approaches €1,000 per MWh (close to €1 per kWh), shore power remains the cheaper option compared to burning conventional fuels.
Case Study: 2,500 TEU Containership with different routes
The above described principles and break-even price points are useful to analysts and shore power geeks, but very abstract for the average shipowner. To make the impact of shore power usage more tangible, two practical case studies are examined: a 2,500 TEU Feedermax containership deployed on two different European routes. Each case compares the cost of running auxiliary engines against plugging into shore power at each port from 2025 until 2040.
-
The ship considered is a typical 2,500 TEU Feedermax built before 2010 and its lifetime has just been extended until 2040. It has a single main engine with 21,560 kW for propulsion purposes and three Wärtsilä 9L20 diesel generators for auxiliary use, each capable of providing 1,880 kVA. Average power demand while in port is assumed to be ~600 kW (average for containerships). The ship is operational for 350 days per year, sailing between different ports at a cruising speed of 22 knts. Main fuel when sailing is LFO, fuel used for auxiliary engines when at berth is MDO.
-
The first case study considers the Feedermax sailing a classic North Sea loop between Rotterdam, Antwerp, Hamburg, and Bremerhaven. Each port call lasts around 18 hours (average between 12 and 24 hours), with a full roundtrip taking approximately 4.8 days. With 350 operational days per year, the vessel completes roughly 74 roundtrips, or nearly 300 individual port calls annually. When plugging into shore power instead of running auxiliary generators, the cumulative savings between 2025 and 2040 amount to an estimated $16.7 million.
This route is a textbook example of a high-frequency feeder loop in the ARA region, where shore power availability is expected to be rolled out earliest under AFIR. With short voyages, consistent port calls, and major hub ports involved, the commercial and compliance case for shore power is particularly strong. Shipowners on such itineraries face limited excuses for delay, as the operational profile aligns almost perfectly with the regulatory targets.
-
The second case study considers the same ship deployed on a different North Sea service, linking Rotterdam to Felixstowe and Dublin. Port stays are again set at 18 hours on average, while the roundtrip cycle time is almost similar - 4.7 days - but with more sailing time. Over the course of the year this results in a similar frequency of around 74 roundtrips. The cumulative savings from switching to shore power under this route are lower than in the ARA loop, amounting to approximately $8.6 million between 2025 and 2040.
This itinerary highlights some important nuances for shipowners. While Dublin is an EU port and thus falls within AFIR and FuelEU Maritime scope, the inclusion of Felixstowe introduces a non-EU leg. This means only 50% of energy consumption from and to the EU count toward EU compliance metrics, reducing the relative benefit from shore power. For shipowners trading across mixed EU–non-EU itineraries, the regulatory and financial case is still strong, but the absolute savings are smaller than in purely EU-based loops.
Methodology and assumptions
All modelling and analyses are based on the Shore Power Quickscan. This tool calculates the total lifecycle operating cost (LCA) of a ship while running on auxiliary generators at berth (conventional) and while using shore power (shore power). The user can freely select the cost components for the analysis, including CAPEX, fuel, electricity and regulatory exposure of a vessel. To determine these costs, the ship’s yearly energy consumption and compliance obligations are calculated on a yearly basis for both the conventional and shore power case. Costs while moored and while sailing are calculated, as shore power usage affects the GHG intensity of the ship over the entire year, thereby changing regulatory compliance costs for sailing as well. Calculations are done as follows.
To unlock the full premium analysis, explore detailed assumptions, run personalized scenarios, or access our cost-benefit model to run your own, become a member.
-
In the current model, only a single fuel type can be selected for the sailing and mooring operational mode. Main fuel used for this analysis is LFO, auxiliary fuel is MDO. It is assumed the main engine is used fully for sailing, aux. engine is used while mooring. All fuel savings are due to shutting off the aux. engine while mooring, therefore all fuel savings are incurred onto the auxiliary fuel consumption. Fuel consumption while mooring is calculated by multiplying the amount of aux. engines with engine load, maximum rated power and Specific Fuel Consumption (SFC) of the engine. Further specifications or multi-fuel options (for example Methanol and MDO in a dual fuel engine) can be done on a case-by-case basis.
-
The model assumes a single electricity price in the calculations, which is €0.35 per kWh or $399 per MWh with an exchange rate of 1.14. No indexation is included for this analysis, but the model allows for the electricity price to be a weighted average of prices inputted by the user for each port. This weighted average is calculated by multiplying the hours in each port with its respective electricity price, summing the total and dividing it by the total amount of hours spent in all ports. For example, if port A has a port stay of 8 hours and a price of $100/MWh, and port B has a port stay of 6 hours and a price of $150/MWh, then the average price is (8*100+6*150) / (8+6) = $121.43 per MWh.
-
A single fuel price constant over time is taken into account for this analysis: $500 per mT for LFO and $750 per mT for MDO. No indexation is included for this analysis, but these can be included by the user to include inflation, simulate the forecasts as provided by third parties, etc..
-
European Allowances (EUA) are assumed €75 for 2025 and UK Allowances (UKA) £ 55. Both increase 6% per annum to reflect the rise of ETS costs expected by the market. UK ETS enters into effect in 2026 and are assumed 0 in 2025.
-
Each fuel is defined by its Lower Calorific Value (LCV) and emission factors, including CO₂, CH₄, and N₂O. Both Tank-to-Wake and Well-to-Wake intensities are included. These are used to calculate energy content, emissions, and compliance intensity per MJ or per tonne. EU ETS, FuelEU and IMO adhere to different emission factors and LCV values, which should be checked especially in the case when biofuels are used.
-
This analysis does not include the additional OPS penalty for the shipowner described in the FuelEU regulation of €1.5 per kW for non-compliant port calls. This clause is included to ensure that shipowners will comply and actually use shore power during a port call, provided of course that infrastructure is available. When assuming an average power demand of 600 kW for containerships (used in the case study further along the article) the penalty would result in a daily fine of €21.600. This clause would basically make writing this article obsolete, considering the costs involved would make plugging in a no-brainer.
-
FuelEU also allows for surplus units to be generated through over-compliance, which can be pooled across fleets or traded, potentially creating additional revenue streams. This mechanism is excluded from the current analysis but could become an important factor for large operators managing diverse fleets.
Sign up for premium tools and benefits
Don’t want to sign up? Check pay-per-use options
References
Sustainable Ships - Shore Power Quickscan
Sustainable Ships - Average Shore Power Demand Tool
Sustainable Ships - Shore Power Demand 2030+
Sustainable Ships - FuelEU Maritime
Sustainable Ships - EU ETS
Sustainable Ships - IMO Net-Zero Framework
EU - Thetis MRV
EU - Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T)
ICCT - Shore power needs and CO2 emissions reductions of ships in EU ports
You might also like
Shipowners and operators face the challenge of navigating multiple regulatory frameworks - EU ETS, FuelEU Maritime, and IMO Net-Zero - each employing distinct methodologies and emission factors for assessing fuel emissions. This blog provides clear guidance on the differing emission factors and calculation methods employed by each regulatory framework.